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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

JOSELYN MILAGROS GOMEZ,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-71801

Agency No. A096-216-701

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 10, 2011** 

Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Joselyn Milagros Gomez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro

se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her

appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for

voluntary departure. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review

FILED

JAN 25 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 07-71801

de novo due process claims, Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th

Cir. 2003), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

We reject Gomez’s contention that the BIA violated due process by failing

to address her fear of forced gang recruitment because she never applied for

asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under the Convention Against Torture. 

See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on

a due process claim). 

We lack jurisdiction to review Gomez’s contentions based on the IJ’s failure

to advise her regarding possible eligibility for asylum because she did not exhaust

the issue before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.

2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
EXHIBIT 31.1

                                 CERTIFICATIONS


I, Richard E. Gathright, certify that:

     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Streicher Mobile
Fueling, Inc.;

     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement
of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Date: February 11, 2005


    /s/ Richard E. Gathright
    ----------------------------------------
    Richard E. Gathright
    President and Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

 

 

                In connection with the Quarterly Report of LancerCorporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,2004, as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, Mark L. Freitas, Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

                (1)           TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

                (2)           Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| November 12, 2004 | /s/ MARK L. FREITAS     |
|-------------------|-------------------------|
|              | Mark L. Freitas,        |
|              | Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

----
EXHIBIT 10.23



SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF KEY TRONIC CORPORATION INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN



Officers, director level managers, senior managers, managers and individual
contributors of certain pay grades are eligible to participate in the Incentive Compensation Plan. Potential annual cash bonuses payable under the Plan are based on the participants base salary paid during the fiscal year. The range of
potential bonuses as a percentage of base salary paid for the categories of Plan participants are as follows:



|                          |  |                        |   |  |    |  |                       |  
|------------------------- |  | ---------------------- | - |  | -- |  | --------------------- | -
|Category                  |  | Entry LevelAchievement |   |  |    |  | Over-achievementLevel |  
|Chief Executive Officer   |  | 5.0                    | % |  | to |  | 75.0                  | %
|Executive Vice Presidents |  | 4.0                    | % |  | to |  | 60.0                  | %
|Other Officers            |  | 3.5                    | % |  | to |  | 52.5                  | %
|Director Level Managers   |  | 3.0                    | % |  | to |  | 45.0                  | %
|Senior Managers           |  | 2.0                    | % |  | to |  | 30.0                  | %
|Managers                  |  | 1.5                    | % |  | to |  | 22.5                  | %
|Individual Contributors   |  | 1.0                    | % |  | to |  | 15.0                  | %



At the beginning of
each fiscal year, the Board of Directors, upon the recommendation of the Compensation and Administration Committee of the Board of Directors, establishes company profit performance goals under the Plan for the fiscal year. Cash bonus payments under
the Plan are based on three company profit performance goals: entry level achievement, expected achievement and over-achievement. The threshold achievement goal must be met for any cash bonuses to be paid under the Plan. Payment percentages are
interpolated for actual profit performance levels achieved between entry level achievement and expected achievement and between expected achievement and over-achievement levels.



A participant must be an active employee of the Company at the time payments are made under the Plan in order to receive a
bonus payment. Payments under the Plan are made as soon as administratively possible after the end of the fiscal year.
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

(SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)



In connection with Annual Report of SI Technologies, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-KA for the period ending July 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Howard George, Corporate Controller of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, 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.



Date: November 29, 2004



|                                          
|------------------------------------------
|/s/    HOWARD GEORGE                      
|Howard George                             
|Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### Effie L. ROGERS, a Widow, etc., et al., Appellants, v. STATE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Indiana Corporation, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. Term, 1936.

Shutts & Bowen and James A. Dunn, all of Miami, for appellants.

Stapp, Gourley, Ward & Ward, of Miami, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed, on motion of counsel for the respective parties.
Exhibit 31                  Rule 13a-14(d) Certification

                                  CERTIFICATION

     I, Thomas G. Lehmann, a First Vice President of Washington Mutual
Mortgage Securities Corp., certify that:

     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form
8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of periods
included in the year covered by this annual report, of WAMU MORTGAGE
PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2002-AR4;

     2. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a
whole, does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state
a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading as of the
last day of the period covered by this annual report;

     3. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
required to be provided to the trustee by the servicer under the pooling and
servicing, or similar, agreement, for inclusion in these reports is included in
these reports;

     4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer
under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement and based upon my
knowledge and the annual compliance review required under that agreement, and
except as disclosed in the reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations
under that agreement; and

     5. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
servicer's compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon the report
provided by an independent public accountant, after conducting a review in
compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or
similar procedure, as set forth in the pooling and servicing, or similar,
agreement, that is included in these reports.

     In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated third parties acting as servicers
and sub-servicers:


None


Dated: March 29, 2005
                                     /s/ Thomas G. Lehmann
                                     ----------------------------------------
                                     Thomas G. Lehmann,
                                     First Vice President
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Chief Judge Wiley Y. Daniel

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02302-WYD-KMT

MICHAEL JANIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

KEVIN OST,

Defendant.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the parties’ Stipulation for Dismissal with

Prejudice filed May 23, 2012. After a careful review of the Stipulation and the file, it is

ORDERED that the Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice is APPROVED and

this matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, each party to bear his own costs.

Dated: May 23, 2012

BY THE COURT:

s/ Wiley Y. Daniel 

Wiley Y. Daniel

Chief United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02302-WYD-KMT Document 16 Filed 05/23/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

In connection with the periodicreport of Energroup Holdings Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe quarter ending September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Shu Wang, Interim ChiefFinancial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) of the Company,hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of myknowledge:

 

(1)                      The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

 

(2)                      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany at the dates and for the periods indicated.

 
|                                                 | /s/ Shu Wang                                  |
|------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|
| Date:    November 15,  2010 | Shu Wang                                      |
|                                                 | Interim Chief Financial Officer               |
|                                                 | (Principal Financial and  Accounting Officer) |

 

----
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF

CURTIS W. MEWBOURNE / CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

OF MEWBOURNE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350

I, Curtis W. Mewbourne, Chief Executive Officer of Mewbourne Development Corporation, Managing General Partner of Mewbourne Energy Partners
03-A, L.P. (the Registrant), hereby certify that the accompanying report on Form 10-K, for the annual period ended December 31, 2009 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof pursuant to
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Report) by the Registrant fully complies with the requirements of that section.

I further certify that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



/s/ Curtis W. MewbourneName: Curtis W. MewbourneDate:   March 31, 2010
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02522-PAB-MEH

ALEX BURTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY,

LAW OFFICE OF CASTLE STAWIARSKI, LLC, and

DEBRA JOHNSON, in her personal and official capacities,

Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER

Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on February 1, 2012.

Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss by Defendant The Bank of New York Mellon Trust

Company (“Mellon”) [filed December 22, 2011; docket #50]. Mellon filed the present motion after

the Clerk of Court entered default against it (docket #26) and Mellon moved to set aside the entry

of default (docket #32), but before the Court ruled on the motion to set aside (docket #72).

According to Mellon, the present motion was filed in response to Plaintiff’s “amended” complaint

(docket #76 at 1 n. 1), which was never accepted by the Court (docket #29) and was subsequently

withdrawn (docket #66). Today, Mellon filed a second motion to dismiss, which responds to the

operative pleading, Plaintiff’s original Complaint, and which succeeds this Court’s order setting

aside the default (see docket #76). The Court concludes that the second motion to dismiss

supercedes the present motion and was filed properly after default was set aside. Accordingly, as

the present motion has been superceded, the motion is denied as moot. 

Case 1:11-cv-02522-PAB-MEH Document 80 Filed 02/01/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
*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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 16, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-60225

Summary Calendar

RUBEN ABASTILLAS OGELSBY,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

--------------------

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A72 027 343

--------------------

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ruben Abastillas Ogelsby petitions for review of an order of

the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The BIA determined that

Ogelsby was removable from the United States because he was an

alien who had committed an aggravated felony. Ogelsby maintains

that the Immigration and Nationalization Service (INS) was

equitably estopped from denying him citizenship because the actions

of an INS clerk prevented him from obtaining citizenship. 

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination that an

alien is deportable because he has committed an aggravated felony.
2

See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C). Ogelsby does not dispute the BIA’s

determination that he has committed an aggravated felony, and his

equitable estoppel claim attacking the BIA’s finding that he is an

alien fails. See Moosa v. INS, 171 F.3d 994, 1003 (5th Cir. 1999).

Consequently, Ogelsby’s petition for review is DISMISSED FOR WANT

OF JURISDICTION.
#### THE CITY OF HOBOKEN, PROSECUTOR-APPELLANT, v. DIVISION OF TAX APPEALS, DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION AND FINANCE, AND STEVENS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, A CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

Submitted June 2, 1947

Decided October 31, 1947.

For the appellant, *John J. Fallon*and *Otmar J. Pellet.*

For the respondent, *Isador Haber.*

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Colib, J.

This appeal brings up a judgment of the Supreme Court affirming the action of the Division of Tax Appeals in granting exemption for 1944 to lands and buildings of Stevens Institute of Technology located in the City of Hoboken.

The facts are fully developed in the opinion of the Supreme Court reported in 134 *N. J. L.*594 and there is no purpose in repeating them. Among the buildings held to be exempt were Alexander House rented for $175 a month; Wittpenn House also rented for $175 per month; an unnamed cottage on Plot 5 rented for $50 or $55 per month and the Gate House rented for $50 per month; the tenants being faculty members.

The statute, *R. S.*54:4-3.6, granting exemption from taxation to the buildings of colleges contains a proviso that “The *329buildings * * * are not conducted for profit.” In the instant case there is no evidence as to whether the charges for these four buildings are such as to return no profit to the Institute. It is a prerequisite to exemption that the owner establish facts entitling it to exemption and in this case Stevens Institute has not met that burden. In the absence of evidence on this important phase we must hold that under the proofs as submitted the four buildings named above are taxable.

The judgment under appeal is affirmed in part and reversed in part and the record remanded to the Supreme Court to enter judgment in accordance herewith.

No costs are allowed.

*For affirmance*— Donges, Eastwood, Burling, Wells, JJ. 4.

*For reversal*— None.

*For modification*— The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Hehek, Colie, Dill, Fbeund, McGeehan, McLean, Schet-TINO, JJ. 9.
No. 6294.

#### Kavaliauskas *v.*Riley et al.

Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.
815 A.2d 954

#### IN THE MATTER OF ANTHONY M. MAGNOTTI AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

February 19, 2003.

ORDER

ANTHONY M. MAGNOTTI of STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1991, having pleaded guilty to Counts 1, 82 and 96 of an indictment filed in the *440Supreme Court of New York, County of Richmond, to grand larceny in the second degree, practicing law while disbarred and scheming to defraud in the first degree, in violation of *New York Penal Law*§ 155.40-01, *New York Judiciary Law*§ 486 and *New York Penal Law*§ 190.65-l[a], and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that pursuant to *Rule*l:20-13(b)(l), ANTHONY M. MAGNOTTI is temporarily suspended from the practice of law pending the final resolution of ethics proceedings against him, effective immediately and until the further Order of this Court; and it is further

ORDERED that ANTHONY M. MAGNOTTI be restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of his suspension; and it is further

ORDERED that ANTHONY M. MAGNOTTI comply with *Rule*1:20-20 dealing with suspended attorneys.
**Exhibit 10.76**

 

**NINTH AMENDMENT**

**OF**

**TAYLOR CAPITAL GROUP, INC.**

**PROFIT SHARING AND EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN**

 

*(Effective As Of October 1, 1998)*

 

WHEREAS, Taylor Capital Group, Inc. (the “Company”) maintains the Taylor Capital Group, Inc. Profit Sharing and Employee Stock Ownership Plan (Effective as of October 1, 1998) (the “Plan”); and

 

WHEREAS, it is now considered desirable to further amend thePlan; 

 

NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the power reserved to theCompany by subsection 17.1 of the Plan, and in exercise of the authority delegated to the Committee established pursuant to Section 18 of the plan (the “Committee”) by subsection 17.1 of the Plan, effective as of January 1, 2004 the Planis hereby amended by adding the following phrase immediately before the period at the end of the first paragraph in subsection 3.1 of the Plan: 

 

“or (iii) terminated employment with the Employers during such plan year on or after the date on which he attained at least age 62 years andcompleted ten years of employment service” 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theundersigned duly authorized member of the Committee has caused the foregoing amendment to be executed this 17th day of March 2004.