alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000892020
<NAME> VIDEOLABS INC
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,846,208
<SECURITIES>                                   293,333
<RECEIVABLES>                                  832,312
<ALLOWANCES>                                    22,914
<INVENTORY>                                  1,028,008
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,048,540
<PP&E>                                         679,366
<DEPRECIATION>                                 434,719
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,353,187
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,174,529
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        32,453
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,353,187
<SALES>                                      1,770,482
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,770,482
<CGS>                                        1,036,514
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  502,289
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                19,009
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                285,688
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   285,688
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .06
        


</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

JAMES COLE JACKSON, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 22-10095 

D.C. No. 4:19-cr-01164-JGZ-EJM-2 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Jennifer G. Zipps, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 17, 2022**

Before: S.R. THOMAS, PAEZ, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

James Cole Jackson appeals from the district court’s judgment and 

challenges the 8-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. 

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Jackson’s counsel has filed 

a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw 

* 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

AUG 26 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 22-10095 

as counsel of record. We have provided Jackson the opportunity to file a pro se 

supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been 

filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 

75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. See 18 

U.S.C § 3583(e)(3); United States v. Henderson, 998 F.3d 1071, 1078 (9th Cir. 

2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 810 (2022).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED.
# Fan-tastic Forces

		Back to search page	

## Audience

Educators

## Grade Levels

Grades K-4, Grades 5-8, Informal Education

## Subject

Physical Science, Flight and Aeronautics, Forces and Motion

## Type

Lesson Plans / Activities

Students will engage in a series of demonstrations focusing on the forces of flight using different materials and shapes to determine which are the most and least susceptible to lift, weight, drag and thrust.

Fan-tastic Forces (PDF)

### **Instructional Video**

Other activities in this series:

3 … 2 … 1 ... Takeoff!Senses of SoundSound EffectsShape Your FlightX-Plane Glider Design ChallengeLower the Boom Citizen Science Guide
- FOIA Home
- FOIA Contacts
- FOIA Guidance
- Access NASA Records   - NASA FOIA Reports
  - FOIA E-Libraries
  - Submit a Request

# 							FOIA Reports						

						The FOIA statute and Department of Justice Guidance require agencies to complete various reports each year. Below are links to NASA’s reports.					

## 

Annual FOIA ReportsChief FOIA Officer ReportsQuarterly FOIA ReportsOther FOIA Reports
#### Conrado Leoncio Acierto MARIANO III; et al., Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General,* Respondent.

No. 02-70720. Agency Nos. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 8, 2003.**

Decided Sept. 16, 2003.

Conrado Leoncio Conrado Leoncio, Acierto Mariano III, III, pro se, Daly City, CA, Rhoda Wilkinson Domingo, Esq., Law Office of Rhoda Domingo, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, William Campbell Erb, Jr., Attorney, Mary Jane Candaux, Esq., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before PREGERSON, THOMAS and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The Attorney General of the United States is the proper respondent in a petition for review of an order of removal. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(3)(A). The clerk shall amend the docket to reflect the above caption.

**

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument, *see*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2), and we deny Petitioners’ request for oral argument.

MEMORANDUM ***

Conrado Leoncio Acierto Mariano III, his ex-wife Teresita G. Mariano, and their *846three children, natives and citizens of the Philippines, petition for review of an order of the the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their application for asylum and withholding of deportation. Because the transitional rules apply, *see Kalaw v. INS,*133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997), we have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). We review BIA’s summary dismissal of an appeal to ensure it is appropriate. *Casas-Chavez v. INS,*300 F.3d 1088, 1089 (9th Cir.2002). We deny the petition.

The BIA’s summary dismissal of the Marianos’ appeal was appropriate because they failed to specify adequately the reasons for the appeal or file a supplemental brief despite indicating they would do so, and the notice of appeal form provided adequate notice that dismissal was a possible sanction for noncompliance. *See*8 C.F.R. § 3.1(d)(2)(i) (2001); *Toquero v. INS,*956 F.2d 193, 195 (9th Cir.1992).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Conrado Mariano’s challenges to the IJ’s decision denying asylum and withholding of deportation because they were not raised before the BIA. *See Ontiveros-Lopez v. INS,*213 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir.2000).

Likewise, we cannot reach Teresita Mariano’s ineffective assistance of counsel and due process claims because they were not first presented to the BIA. *See id.*

We have not considered the exhibits attached to Teresita Mariano’s briefs because they are not part of the administrative record. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 10.

PETITION DENIED.

***

 xhis disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Bloomhuff *v.*The State.

The keeping in a public place of “ a certain common, ill-governed, and disorderly room,” and procuring and suffering, for lucre, disorderly persons to meet and remain therein by night and by day, “ drinking, tippling, cursing, swearing, quarrelling, malting groat noises, rolling bowls in and at a game commonly called ten pins,” &c., — is a public nuisance and indictable.

If on an indictment for a nuisance against three persons, the jury find one guilty and say nothing as to the others, judgment may be rendered against the one found guilty.

A conviction on an indictment charging a nuisance in the above language, does not authorize the Court to order the “ball alley” to be abated.

ERROR to the *Allen*Circuit Court.

Dewey, J.

This was a prosecution for a public nuisance. The indictment was against the plaintiff in error and two other persons, charging them with keeping, in a public place, “a certain common, ill-governed, and disorderly room,” in which, for lucre, they procured and suffered disorderly persons to meet, by night and by day, and to remain there “drinking, tippling, cursing, swearing, quarrelling, making great noises, rolling bowls in and at a game commonly called ten pins,” &c. A motion to quash the indictment was overruled. The defendants pleaded not guilty. The jury found the plaintiff in error guilty and assessed his fine at one dollar; there being no finding as to the other defendants. The Court rendered a judgment on the verdict, and for costs against the plaintiff in error; 'and they further ordered that the sheriff “remove and abate the nuisance, to wit, the ball alley.”

The errors assigned are, first, the refusal of the Court to quash the indictment; secondly, rendering judgment on the verdict finding but one defendant guilty, and saying nothing as to the other defendants; thirdly, ordering the ball alley to be removed and abated.

The first two objections are without foundation. The offence charged in the indictment is a public nuisance, and indictable. *The State*v. *Bertheol,*6 Blackf. 474. — R. S. 1843, p. 974. It was competent for the jury to find one of the defendants guilty, and the others not guilty; the one found guilty therefore, we think, cannot complain that nothing was said by the jury of the other two. But the order for the abatement of the ball alley was unauthorized. The statute *206provides that after any person shall have been convicted of erecting or maintaining a public nuisance, the Court may make it a part of the judgment, that such nuisance be removed by the sheriff. R. S. 1843, p. 974. In the cause before us neither the ball alley, nor the room in which it was kept, was the nuisance of which the plaintiff in error was convicted. The nuisance was in the manner in which they were kept. The ball alley in itself was no nuisance.

*W. II. Coombs,*for the plaintiff.

*A. A. Hammond,*for the state,

*Per Curiam.*

That part of the judgment which imposes the fine and costs is affirmed, and the residue is reversed. Cause remanded, &c.
#### Conner and Others *v.*Hawkins.

The heirs of an intestate may, under the act of 1843, file a petition in the Probate Court against the administrator for distribution, &c.

It is no answer or plea to such petition, that the defendant does not know who the heirs of the intestate are.

On overruling objections to an answer or plea to such petition, the suit should not be dismissed, but the petitioners should be permitted to reply, &c.

ERROR to the *Tippecanoe*Probate Court.

Perkins, J.

Petition to the Probate Court of *Tippecanoe*county by the heirs of *William Conner,*deceased, against *•James Hawkins,*the administrator of said *Conner’s*estate, asking a settlement and distribution. The administrator answered, saying that he did not know who were the heirs, if he had any, of *William Conner,*deceased, and asked that this answer might be taken for a plea. The petitioners excepted to the sufficiency of the answer, but the Court disallowed the exceptions and dismissed the petition.

If the defendant’s response to this petition be regarded as an answer, it was correctly *excepted to*for insufficiency, and the exceptions should have been allowed.; if regarded as a plea, it is bad for not directly denying that the petitioners were the heirs of said *Conner.*Story’s Eq. PI. 505. In either view, therefore, the Court erred in not allowing the exceptions. It is true, the formal mode of taking the judgment of the Court upon a plea, is by setting it down for argument, and not by exception; but no objection as to form was made in this case. But suppose this response of the defendant to have been sufficient as an answer, or good as a plea, the Court should not have dismissed the petition. If an an*237swer, the petitioners should have been permitted to reply, and bring the case to a hearing on the merits. If a plea, issue should have been permitted to be taken on it, and the defendant required to prove it.

*A. Ingram*and *R. Jones,*for the plaintiffs.

*G. S. Orth,*for the defendant.

The counsel for the defendant justifies the decision on the ground, also, that the application itself was unauthorized. We think the application was proper. Sect. 351, p. 549, R. S. 1843, authorizes proceedings in this form in cases like that made by this petition.

*Per Curiam.*

The decree is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.
<PAGE>



                                                                      Exhibit 12

                             STONEPATH GROUP, INC.
       Computation of the Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges Calculation
                           Regulation S-K Item 503(d)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                                     Year Ended
                                                                 December 31, 2003
                                                                 -----------------

<S>                                                                   <C>
Earnings
     Pre-tax income (loss) from continuing operations before
       minority interests or income/(loss) from equity investees      $   400,624

     Add: Fixed charges                                                 2,764,851
     Add: Amortization of capitalized interest                               --
     Add: Distributed income of equity investees                             --
     Add: Share of pre-tax losses of equity investees                        --

     Less: Interest capitalized                                           (47,500)
     Less: Preference security dividend requirements of
             consolidated subsidiaries                                       --
     Less: Minority interest in pre-tax income of subsidiaries
             that have not incurred fixed charges                        (187,310)
                                                                      -----------
          Total Earnings                                              $ 2,930,665
                                                                      ===========

Fixed Charges
     Interest expensed and capitalized                                $   189,359
     Add: Amortized premiums, discounts and capitalized
            expenses related to indebtedness                              116,796
     Add: Estimate of the interest within rental expense (a)            2,458,696
     Add: Preference security dividend requirements of
            consolidated subsidiaries (pre-tax)                              --
                                                                      -----------
          Total Fixed Charges                                         $ 2,764,851
                                                                      ===========

Ratio of earnings to combined fixed charges and
  preference dividends                                                       1.06
                                                                      ===========


(a) Total rent expense                                                $ 7,450,593
    Percentage                                                                 33%
                                                                      -----------
    Estimated interest portion of rent expense                        $ 2,458,696
                                                                      ===========


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jesus HERRERO-TEPOLE, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 02-10446.

D.C. No. CR-00-01598-DCB.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 8, 2003.*

Decided Sept. 15, 2003.

Christina M. Cabanillas, Serra Marie Tsethlikai, USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Francisco Leon, Esq., Law Office of Francisco Leon, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before PREGERSON, THOMAS and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Jesus Herrero-Tepole appeals his guilty-plea conviction and 41-month sentence for being found in the United States *827after having been deported subsequent to an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Herrero-Tepole’s counsel has filed a brief stating that he finds no meritorious issues for review, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Our examination of the brief and our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 83-84, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), disclose no arguable issues for review on direct appeal.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED and, in light of the appeal waiver, the appeal is DISMISSED. *See United States v. Nunez,*223 F.3d 956, 959 (9th Cir.2000).

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Brownlee, Administrator, *v.*Whitesides.

After the reversal of a judgment of a Probate Court on error by the Circuit Court, the Probate Court gave judgment in conformity to the direction of the Circuit Court. *Held,*that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction in the case.

APPEAL from the *Grant*Probate Court.

Dewey, J.

*Whitesides*filed a claim, in the Probate Court of *Grant*county, against the estate of *Trash,*of whose estate *Brownlee*was the administrator. The administrator disputed the claim, and the parties went to trial on an agreed case. Judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff appealed to the Circuit Court, which Court reversed the judgment of the Probate Court, and remanded the cause, with instruction to the Probate Court 'to enter a judgment for the plaintiff on the agreed case, which was accordingly done. From that judgment the defendant appeals to this Court.

The statute authorizes any person against whom there is a judgment, decree, order, &c., of the Probate Court, to take the cause either to the Supreme Court, or to the Circuit Court, for the correction of errors in the same manner, and subject to the same laws, rules, and regulations, by and under which judgments and decrees of the Circuit Courts may be taken to the Supreme Court. And the Court to *81which a cause may be thus taken from the Probate Court, has the same jurisdiction thereof, and shall entertain, and determine the same, in all respects, as in cases of appeal and writs of error in the Supreme Court to correct the errors of the Circuit Courts. R. S. 1S43, p. 668.

*J. Brownlee,*for the appellant.

*W. March,*for the appellee.

. . These provisions comer upon the Circuit Courts concurrent appellate jurisdiction with the Supreme Court over the judgments, decrees, orders, and proceedings of the Probate Courts; and have, as we conceive, the effect of rendering the decision of either Court conclusive as to all matters adjudicated by it. The judgment now attempted to be reversed was rendered by the Probate Court in conformity to the decision of the Circuit Court sitting as a Court of errors. It cannot be again revised either in that Court or this. We have no jurisdiction over the cause. It must therefore be dismissed. We will remark, however, that we see nothing amiss in the judgment of reversal by the Circuit Court.

*Per Curiam.*

The suit is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
NASA TV Live 
 Upcoming Events All times listed are in U.S. Eastern, which equates to UTC-4 between March and November. All television broadcasts are carried on NASA TV’s Public and Media channels, unless specifically noted otherwise. Audio streams are not carried on NASA TV and will be available on this page or via a link posted here. Tuesday, ... Continue reading NASA TV Live
 NASA


WordPress Embed
					HTML Embed Copy and paste this URL into your WordPress site to embed
 <blockquote class="wp-embedded-content" data-secret="MZksGOH6Pr">NASA TV Live</blockquote><iframe sandbox="allow-scripts" security="restricted" src="https://www.nasa.gov/nasatv/embed/#?secret=MZksGOH6Pr" width="600" height="400" title="“NASA TV Live” — NASA" data-secret="MZksGOH6Pr" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" class="wp-embedded-content"></iframe><script>
/*! This file is auto-generated */
!function(d,l){"use strict";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&"undefined"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!/[^a-zA-Z0-9]/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret="'+t.secret+'"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret="'+t.secret+'"]'),c=new RegExp("^https?:$","i"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display="none";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute("style"),"height"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):"link"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute("src")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener("message",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll("iframe.wp-embedded-content"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute("data-secret"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+="#?secret="+t,e.setAttribute("data-secret",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:"ready",secret:t},"*")},!1)))}(window,document);
</script> Copy and paste this code into your site to embed