alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUAN DANIEL CASTILLO,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 11-73005

Agency No. A077-992-454

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted September 2, 2015

Pasadena, California

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, FISHER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Juan Daniel Castillo petitions for review of the Board of Immigration

Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his motion to reconsider its decision reversing the

Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) grant of a waiver of inadmissibility and remanding to

the IJ for entry of a removal order. 

FILED

OCT 07 2015

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.
We must first determine whether we have jurisdiction to consider the

petition. Our jurisdiction is limited to review of a “final order of removal,” even

where a constitutional claim or question of law is raised. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(1),

(b)(9); Alcala v. Holder, 563 F.3d 1009, 1016 (9th Cir. 2009). 

In Abdisalan v. Holder, an en banc panel of this Court recently sought “to

clarify the issue of finality of the [BIA’s] decisions” when the BIA remands to the

IJ for further proceedings. 774 F.3d 517, 520 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (as

amended). We concluded that “[w]hen the BIA remands to the IJ for any reason,

no final order of removal exists until all administrative proceedings have

concluded.” Id. at 526. 

Here, the BIA remanded to the IJ for entry of an order of removal.

According to submissions from both parties, on remand the IJ entered an order of

removal, petitioner appealed, and his case currently remains pending before the

2
BIA. Because “all administrative proceedings” have not concluded, “no final order

of removal exists.” Id. We lack jurisdiction.1

The petition for review is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

1

 If relief is not granted in the ongoing administrative proceedings, a final

order of removal will exist once the proceedings have concluded. Within 30 days

of the conclusion of administrative proceedings, petitioner may re-file his petition

for review. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1). The final order will include “all matters on

which the validity of the final order is contingent, rather than only those

determinations actually made” in the last agency decision. I.N.S. v. Chadha, 462

U.S. 919, 938 (1983) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, the final order will

include the BIA’s denial of petitioner’s motion to reconsider and the underlying

decision. See Go v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1047, 1051–52 (9th Cir. 2011) (applying

Chadha). 

3
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. MOSES GAINES.

November 2, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-10-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         367,337
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  228,728
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               596,065
<PP&E>                                      16,910,778
<DEPRECIATION>                                  48,831
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              17,458,012
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          109,509
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  17,348,503
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                17,458,012
<SALES>                                        477,607
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               506,508
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   94,340
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                412,168
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            412,168
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   412,168
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.2

Summary of Non-Employee Director Compensation
(effective January 29, 2022)
​
We do not compensate for Board service any director who also serves as our employee. We will reimburse directors for certain fees and expenses incurred in connection with continuing education seminars and for travel and related expenses related to Dollar General business.  
​
Each non-employee director will receive payment (prorated as applicable) for a fiscal year, in quarterly installments, of the following cash compensation, as applicable: 
​
		●	$95,000 annual retainer for service as a Board member; 

		●	$25,000 annual retainer for service as chairman of the Audit Committee; 

		●	$20,000 annual retainer for service as chairman of the Compensation Committee; and 

		●	$17,500 annual retainer for service as chairman of the Nominating & Governance Committee.

​
The Chairman of the Board will receive an annual Chairman retainer delivered on the first trading day of the fiscal year in the form of restricted stock units payable in shares of our common stock (“RSUs”) under our 2021 Stock Incentive Plan, which are scheduled to vest as to 100% of the award on the first anniversary of the grant date, subject to certain accelerated vesting conditions, and have an estimated value of $200,000.
​
In addition, we grant annually to those non-employee directors who are elected or re-elected at each applicable shareholders’ meeting an equity award under our 2021 Stock Incentive Plan with an estimated value of $175,000 on the grant date. This entire value consists of RSUs. The RSUs will vest as to 100% of the award on the first anniversary of the grant date, subject to certain accelerated vesting conditions. Directors may generally elect to defer receipt of shares underlying the RSUs. They may also generally elect to defer up to 100% of cash fees earned for Board service under the Non-Employee Director Deferred Compensation Plan filed as Exhibit 10.6 to Dollar General Corporation’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended October 31, 2014. Any new director appointed after the annual shareholders’ meeting but before February 1 of a given year, will receive a full equity award no later than the first regularly scheduled Compensation Committee meeting following the date on which he or she is appointed. Any new director appointed on or after February 1 of a given year but before the next annual shareholders’ meeting shall be eligible to receive the next regularly scheduled annual award.
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





Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Corporate Fraud Accountability Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted), Michael Forster, Principal Accounting Officer of
Power-Save Energy Company (the "Company"), hereby certifies that, to the best of
his knowledge:





1.


the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30,
2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
and





2.


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





Dated:
      August 5, 2008
            /s/Michael
      Forster
              Michael
      Forster
              Principal
      Accounting Officer
NO. 07-08 -008 6-CV IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL D APR IL 24 , 200 8

_________

_________

_________

___ KENCO BANCSHARES , INC., APPE LLA NT

V. E.O. W INKLE S, INDIVIDUAL LY AND AS INDEPE NDENT EX EC UTORAN D TRU STEE U ND ERTHE W ILL O F ALIC E E. W IN KLES, D EC EASED , AP PELLEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 39 T H DI ST RI CTCOU RTOF K EN TCOU NT Y; NO . 163 9; H ON ORABLE CH AR LES L EW IS C HA PM AN , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRT LE, JJ. ON M OT ION T O D ISM ISS On A pr il 17, 2008, appel lan t Ke nco Banc shares, Inc ., filed an u noppos ed moti on to dis mis s t hisappeal

. No deci si on of thi s C our t hav ing been del ivered to date, w e g ra nt t he moti on. Acc ordin g ly , t he appe al isdi smi ss ed. Tex . R . Ap p. P . 42. 1(a )(1 ). As no agreem entregarding app ellate costs has bee n f iled, all costs i ncurred by this app eal are2

adj udg ed ag ain st appel lan t. Tex . R . Ap p. P . 42 .1 (d ). No moti on for re hear ing w il l be enter tai ned and our

mandate w il l is sue forthw it h.

Jam es T . Camp bell Justice
* This panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. SeeFed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### May 8, 2008 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. A. C. ANDERSON, Defendant-Appellant. No. 08-5045 (D.C. No. 4:07-CR-00023-TCK-1) (N.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before LUCERO , EBEL , and TYMKOVICH , Circuit Judges.
This matter is before the court on the government’s motion to enforce the appellate waiver contained in defendant’s plea agreement. Through counsel, defendant filed a response in which he agreed that his appeal fell within the scope of the waiver in his plea agreement, that his waiver was knowing and voluntary, and that none of the conditions that would make the waiver unenforceable existed.-2- Because defendant does not contest the government’s motion to enforce the plea agreement, the motion is GRANTED and the appeal is DISMISSED.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT PER CURIAM
Exhibit 32.1



RF MONOLITHICS, INC.



CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF SARBANES  OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The
undersigned, David M. Kirk, Chief Executive Officer and President of RF Monolithics, Inc. (the Company), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:



| | 1. | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended February 29, 2004 (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. | Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this instrument to be executed this 13th day of April, 2004.



/s/ David M. KirkName: David M. KirkTitle: Chief Executive Officer and President




|* | 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.
|- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit 31.3

Certification of Chief Executive Officer

of Periodic Report Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) and Rule 15d-14(a)

I, Dane C. Andreeff, certify that:

| 1. | I have reviewed Amendment No. 1 to annual report on Form 10-K of Helius Medical Technologies, Inc.; and |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 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. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|                                                                                             |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date: September 8, 2020                                                                     |
|                                                                                        |
| /s/ Dane C. Andreeff                                                                        |
| Dane C. Andreeff                                                                            |
| Interim President and Chief Executive Officer

and Director 

(Principal Executive Officer) |
#### Julius Dwaine PERRY, Sr., Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 19102.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

May 25, 1964.

Julius Dwaine Perry, Sr., in pro. per. Francis C. Whelan, U. S. Atty., Thomas R. Sheridan, Asst. U. S. Atty., Chief, Criminal Section, A. Robert Throckmorton, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.

Before JERTBERG, BROWNING and DUNIWAY, Circuit Judges.

BROWNING, Circuit Judge.

1. Appellant, an indigent prisoner acting without the aid of counsel, petitioned for a writ of coram nobis, alleging that his guilty plea had been coerced. The district court dismissed the petition without reaching the merits, holding that the appropriate procedure was by way of motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. With this we agree. However, as we held in Smith v. United States, 309 F.2d 165, 166 (9th Cir.1962), the label which the prisoner attaches to his papers is to be disregarded. Appellant’s application is to be treated as if it were a section 2255 motion.

2. A prior section 2255 motion raising the coerced-plea issue was dismissed without a hearing on the ground that the record in the proceeding in which appellant was convicted conclusively established that appellant was entitled to no relief. The court relied upon the presence in the record of a mimeographed form titled “Petition to Enter Plea of Guilty.” This form, apparently signed by appellant prior to his plea, contained the statement that the plea was offered “freely and voluntarily and of my own accord.” Appellant in his present motion alleges matters outside of the record indicating that his plea was in fact coerced. His prior declaration to the contrary may be relevant in determining the existence of coercion, but it can scarcely be conclusive. Since factual issues are raised by appellant’s allegations, an evidentiary hearing must be held in the sentencing court. Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 16-17, 83 S.Ct. 1068, 10 L.Ed.2d 148 (1963).

Reversed and remanded.
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  In Re: A MERICANH OUSEHOLD , I NCORPORATED , formerly known as Sunbeam Corporation; S TEPHENT. M OFFETT , Esq., T HOMAS L. V ITU , No. 03-1919



#  Esq., J OHNE. H ALL , Esq., R. S COTT L ONG , Esq., and B ARBARA A. A LLEN , Esq., Petitioners. 

# 

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(CA-99-144-5) Argued: September 26, 2003 Decided: February 27, 2004 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL ARGUED: John Emmert Hall, Andrew G. Fusco, ECKERT, SEAMANS, CHERIN & MELLOTT, P.L.L., Morgantown, West Virginia, for Petitioners. William J. Hansen, MCDERMOTT, HANSEN & MCLAUGHLIN, L.L.P., Denver, Colorado, for Respondents. ON BRIEF: George E. McLaughlin, MCDERMOTT, HANSEN & MCLAUGHLIN, L.L.P., Denver, Colorado, for Respondents.Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

OPINION
PER CURIAM:This case is before us on a petition for a writ of mandamus. Petitioners assert that mandamus relief is appropriate because the magistrate judge, to whom the case had been referred, improperly conducted criminal contempt proceedings against them. Petitioners seek an order from this court removing the case from the magistratejudge and directing the district judge to conduct appropriate proceedings de novo

. After the petition was filed, the magistrate judge entered a report and recommendation on the matters before him, and the parties filed objections to that report. On September 26, 2003, we conducted oral argument on an expedited basis. Four days later, the district judge — having considered the report and the objections — entered an order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendations. Petitioners have now appealed the district court’s order. See Bradley v. American Household, Inc. , No. 03-2341. The authorities are uniform that mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal, which procedure we think is being attempted in this case. We are satisfied and hold that all the claims of error in this case may be reached on their merits by appeal from the decisions and orders of the district court and magistrate judge entered in that case, Bradley et al. v. Sunbeam Corp. , No. 5:99CV144 (N.D.W.Va. filed Oct. 21, 1999). In light of these circumstances, we conclude that the petition is now moot. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition.
PETITION DISMISSED 2 I N R E : A MERICAN H OUSEHOLD , I NC
.
Exhibit 32.1



RF MONOLITHICS, INC.



CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF SARBANES  OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The
undersigned, David M. Kirk, Chief Executive Officer and President of RF Monolithics, Inc. (the Company), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:



| | 1. | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended February 28, 2005 (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. | Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this instrument to be executed this 13th day of April, 2005.



/s/ David M. KirkName:

David M. KirkTitle:

Chief Executive Officer and President




---

|* | 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.
|- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
584 A.2d 215

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. DONALD L. HICKS.

May 15, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 0 1

- 00 708

- CR

Ralph Remsburg , Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 4 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. 569074 , HONORABLE MIKE DENTON , JUDGE PRESIDING

Appellant

= s motion to dismiss this appeal is granted. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a). The

appeal is dismissed.

__________________________________________

Marilyn Aboussie, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Aboussie, Justices B. A. Smith and Yeakel

Dismissed on Appellant

=

s Motion

Filed: June 13, 2002

Do Not Publish
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-50956 Summary Calendar

KENNETH STENHOLM, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus KENNETH S. APFEL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-96-CV-369

- - - - - - - - - - July 14, 1998 Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Kenneth Stenholm appeals from the district court’s judgment affirming the denial of his application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. He argues that substantial evidence did not exist to support the finding that he was not disabled. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
AFFIRMED.
#### IN THE MATTER OF CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE ADOPTED AND APPROVED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN OF THE MORRIS COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS.

December 8, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
CERTIFICATIONS 

I, Richard Kassar, certify that: 

1.I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the  Annual Report on Form 10-K of Freshpet, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2014; and

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.

Date: April 24, 2015

/s/ Richard Kassar        _Richard Kassar Chief Financial Officer