alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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

October 20, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-10132

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ALFREDO COVARRUBIAS, also known as Alfredo

Covarrubias-Amaral, also known as Robert Covarrubias,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:03-CR-229-ALL-A

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

Before JOLLY, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Alfredo Covarrubias appeals his sentence for violating

8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b) by illegally reentering the United

States, without permission, following his deportation. 

Covarrubias contends for the first time on appeal that he should

not have been assessed a criminal history point for a prior

conviction for shoplifting because that crime is similar to the

crime of writing an insufficient-funds check, which is exempt

from inclusion in the criminal history calculation. See U.S.S.G.
No. 04-10132

-2-

§ 4A1.2(c)(1). Covarrubias fails to provide any binding

authority holding that the two offenses are similar, and he thus

fails to show that the district court made any “clear” or

“obvious” error. See United States v. Hull, 160 F.3d 265, 271-

272 (5th Cir. 1998).

Covarrubias also has filed a letter pursuant to FED. R. APP.

P. 28(j) calling our attention to the Supreme Court’s recent

decision in Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). 

However, we have held that Blakely does not apply to the United

States Sentencing Guidelines. United States v. Pineiro, 377 F.3d

464, 473 (5th Cir. 2004), petition for cert. filed (U.S. July 14,

2004) (No. 04-5263).

AFFIRMED.
* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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

July 11, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-11287

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

IGNACIO LARES-MERAZ, 

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas 

USDC No. 6:06-CR-37

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

Before JOLLY, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Ignacio LaresMeraz (Lares) raises arguments that are foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held

that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a

separate criminal offense. Lares also raises arguments that are

foreclosed by United States v. Mejia-Huerta, 480 F.3d 713, 723

(5th Cir. 2007), petition for cert. filed, 75 U.S.L.W. 3585 (U.S.

Apr. 18, 2007) (No. 06-1381), which held that the district court

is not required to provide notice prior to sentencing of its sua
No. 06-11287

-2-

sponte intention to impose a non-Guidelines sentence. The

Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

December 28, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132275 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

MELVINA SEYFRIED, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

v SC: 132275 Justices 

 COA: 270171 

Clinton CC: 05-009930-CK 

BRUCE SEYFRIED, 

Defendant-Appellant, 

and 

DONALD SEYFRIED and LISA SEYFRIED, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 15, 2006 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

s1218 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

December 28, 2006 

 Clerk
#### J. R. Kennady *v.*P. H. Jordan.

Principal and Agent — Good Faith — Fraud.

Where appellant pretended to sell whiskey for appellee at $1.50 per gallon to induce him to accept the supposed price under the mistaken belief, wrongfully induced by appellant, that he had in good faith sold the whiskey at that price to Smith, with the intention to profit by this imposition, and the appellant did so profit by the sale of the whiskey at a greatly advanced price. *Held,*that appellee could recover the value o-f the whiskey at the time of the pretended sale from appellant and those in combination with him in the perpetration of the fraud.

ARPEAD FROM ANDERSON CIRCUIT COURT.

February 16, 1867.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Hardin :

The appeal in this case brings before us for revision a judgment in favor of the appellee against the appellants, Kennady, and K. *217G. and J. H. Matheny, for $1,200, with interest from the 1st day of June, 1866.

The material question, which was one of fact, appears to have been whether Kennady in good faith sold for the appellee the thirty-seven barrels of whiskey, or the remainder-thereof, while in his possession, upon storage, at the price of $1.50 per gallon, for which he accounted to the appellee, or merely pretended to have so disposed of the whiskey to Smith, or Smith & Hanly, to induce the appellee to accept the supposed price of $1.50- per gallon for the whiskey, in order that he and said Mathenys in fraudulent combination with him might avail themselves of it by accounting for it at that price.

It satisfactorily appears from the evidence that the appellee accepted from Kennady an account of.the whiskey, at the price of $1.50 per gallon, under the mistaken belief, wrongfully induced by Kennady, that the latter had in good faith sold the whiskey for him at that price to Smith, and the evidence tending to show a combination between F. G. and J. H. Matheny and Kennady to profit by this imposition, and that they did so profit by a sale of the whiskey at a greatly enhanced price, seems to us to have been sufficient to authorize the finding of the jury.

We do not perceive that any error was committed to the appellant’s prejudice, in the admission of evidence to the jury, with the restrictions and qualifications which the court imposed, as to its application to the issues between the parties. Nor was there, in our opinion, any essential error in the giving, refusing, or modifying of instructions, and on the whole it seems to us the motion for a new trial was properly overruled.

Wherefore, the judgment is affirmed with damages.
**Exhibit
      23.1**





**Consent
      of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**








The
      Board
      of Directors


NexCen
      Brands, Inc.





We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
      333-91369, 333-52220, 333-128062, 333-52222, 333-139078) on Form S-8 and (No.
      333-137365) on Form S-3 of NexCen Brands, Inc. (formerly Aether Holdings, Inc.)
      of our report dated March 16, 2007 with respect to the consolidated balance
      sheets of NexCen Brands, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2006 and
      2005,
      and the related consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss,
      stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
      period ended December 31, 2006, and our report dated March 16, 2007 with respect
      to management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over
      financial reporting as of December 31, 2006 and the effectiveness of internal
      control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2006, which reports appear
      in the December 31, 2006 Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of NexCen Brands,
      Inc.







/s/
      KPMG
      LLP





Baltimore,
      Maryland


April
      27,
      2007
##### 



EXHIBIT 21.1
 List of Subsidiaries
 JurisdictionSubsidiary
    
    of Organization
    
    OwnershipSINA.com Online
    
    United States of America
    
    
    100
    %Rich Sight Investment Limited
    
    Hong Kong
    
    
    100
    %SINA.com (Hong Kong) Limited
    
    Hong Kong
    
    
    100
    %Magic King Assets Ltd.
    
    British Virgin Islands
    
    
    100
    %Memestar Limited
    
    British Virgin Islands
    
    
    100
    %Crillion Corp.
    
    British Virgin Islands
    
    
    100
    %Davidhill Capital Inc.
    
    British Virgin Islands
    
    
    100
    %Beijing SINA Information Technology Co., Ltd.
    
    Peoples Republic of China
    
    
    99.35
    %Beijing SINA Internet Technology Service Co., Ltd.
    
    Peoples Republic of China
    
    
    100
    %Beijing New Media Information Technology Co., Ltd.
    
    Peoples Republic of China
    
    
    100
    %Beijing Sina Interactive Game Technology Co.Ltd.
    
    Peoples Republic of China
    
    
    100
    %Beijing Davidhill Internet Technology Co., Ltd.
    
    Peoples Republic of China
    
    
    100
    %Star-Village Internet Technology (Beijing) Co. Ltd.
    
    Peoples Republic of China
    
    
    100
    %SINA.com Technology (China) Co. Ltd.
    
    Peoples Republic of China
    
    
    100
    %Shanghai SINA Technology Service Co. Ltd.
    
    Peoples Republic of China
    
    
    100
    %Fayco Network Technology Development (Shenzhen)
Co. Ltd.
    
    Peoples Republic of China
    
    
    100
    %
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 1852 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 16, 2004 

Referred to the Committee on Resources 

AN ACT 

To provide financial assistance for the rehabilitation of the 

Benjamin Franklin National Memorial in Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania, and the development of an exhibit to commemorate the 300th anniversary of the birth of Benjamin Franklin. 

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

S 1852 RFH 

1 SECTION 1. BENJAMIN FRANKLIN NATIONAL MEMORIAL. 

2 The Secretary of the Interior may provide a grant 

3 to the Franklin Institute to— 

4 (1) rehabilitate the Benjamin Franklin National 

5 Memorial (including the Franklin statue) in Phila6 delphia, Pennsylvania; and 

7 (2) develop an interpretive exhibit relating to 

8 Benjamin Franklin, to be displayed at a museum ad9 jacent to the Benjamin Franklin National Memorial. 

10 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

11 (a) IN GENERAL.—There is authorized to be appro12 priated to carry out this Act $10,000,000. 

13 (b) REQUIRED MATCH.—The Secretary of the Inte14 rior shall require the Franklin Institute to match any 

15 amounts provided to the Franklin Institute under this Act. 

Passed the Senate October 10, 2004. 

Attest: EMILY J. REYNOLDS, 

Secretary.
#### L. B. Overby *v.*N. C. Penyman et al.

Injunction — Process to Revive — Dissolution.

The dissolution of an injunction on a petition for a new trial cannot be revived by the appellate court until the appellant shall have obtained an order from the court below to stay the dissolution for such time as will enable him to obtain' an order from the appellate court to reinstate same. The dissolution must stand until the petition for a rehearing after the adjournment of the term of court at which the judgment was rendered .is finally disposed of, and until this is done the appellate court has no jurisdiction of the case.

APPEAL PROM CALDWELL CIRCUIT COURT.

June 8, 1867.

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Williams:

Whether the judgment of $37.50 obtained by appellee Penyman against appellant on his offset can be modified ultimately by this proceeding, which is a petition for a new hearing after the adjournment of the term at which the judgment was rendered, we will not intimate, nor whether a motion made in proper time to correct the judgment as a misprision would have reached the error complained of.

It is quite probable that the items in the offset for over $100 are the same as the credits given by Overby on Penyman’s account with him, and if so it is quite unjust for Penyman to get credit therefor and then again get the benefit thereof by way of offset, but Overby should -have replied to Penyman’s offset; it seems from the record he offered to do so, but this reply was not made part of the record; therefore, we cannot determine that it presented any defense to the offset.

The dissolution of the injunction on appellant’s petition for a new trial cannot now be revived; he should have obtained an order from the court to stay the dissolution for twenty days that an application to one of the judges of this court to reinstate it might have been made, but having failed to do this the dissolution must stand until the petition is finally disposed of, and until this is done this court has no jurisdiction of the case. We cannot revise the first judgment until this petition for a new trial is dis*624posed of, so there is nothing in the record now subject to revision in the present posture of affairs. Wherefore, the appeal is dismissed.

*Calvert,*for Appellant.

*Harlan,*for Appellee.
#### CONSOLIDATED ENTERPRISES, INC. v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF NEWARK.

May 16, 1978.

Petition for certification denied. (See 159 *N. J. Super.*75)
**Exhibit 31.2**
I, Robert Selvi, certify that:
 1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of SonicWALL, Inc.;  2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;  3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded 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 periodspresented in this report;  4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b)  designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused suchinternal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, toprovide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and thepreparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance withgenerally accepted accounting principles;  c)  evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  d)  disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):
 a)  all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b)  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.        Date: March 21, 2005 /s/ Robert Selvi   **Robert Selvi**   **Chief Financial Officer**
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.7A

                             SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE
                     GRAPHIC PACKAGING EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN
                (AS AMENDED AND RESTATED EFFECTIVE MAY 15, 2001)


1. PLAN SPONSOR: Graphic Packaging International Corporation.

2. AMENDMENT OF PLAN: The following amendments to the Graphic Packaging Equity
Incentive Plan (As Amended and Restated Effective May 15, 2001) (the "Plan") are
adopted effective April 30, 2003.

3. SECTION 2.1(h) OF THE PLAN SHALL BE AMENDED TO READ IN FULL AS FOLLOWS:

                  (h) "Fair Market Value" means the closing price of the Stock
         as reported on the New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") on the date
         preceding a particular date. If there are no Stock transactions on such
         date, the Fair Market Value shall be determined as of the immediately
         preceding date on which there were Stock transactions. If the price of
         the Stock is not reported on NYSE, the Fair Market Value of the Stock
         on the particular date shall be as determined by the Committee using a
         reference comparable to the NYSE system. If, upon exercise of an
         Option, the exercise price is paid by a broker's transaction as
         provided in section 7.2(g)(ii)(D), Fair Market Value, for purposes of
         the exercise, shall be the price at which the Stock is sold by the
         broker.


4. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PLAN. Except for the above amendments, all terms and
conditions of the Plan are unamended and shall remain in full force and effect.

                                               GRAPHIC PACKAGING INTERNATIONAL
                                               CORPORATION


                                               By:
                                                   -----------------------------
EXHIBIT
32.2





Certification
of Chief Finanical Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350


(Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)





Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, the undersigned officer of Sandston Corporation (the
"Company") hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/ Daniel J. DormanName:
                Daniel
      J. DormanTitle:
                President
      and Chief Executive Officer(Principal
      Financial Officer)Date:
                May
      14, 2010





The
foregoing certification (i) accompanies the filing and is being furnished solely
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, (ii) will not be deemed "filed" for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the
liability of that section, and (iii) will not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act,
except to the extent that the small business issuer specifically incorporates it
by reference.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other 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 Sandston Corporation and will be retained
by Sandston Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
#### Zhe Xiao ZHOU, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 02-72266.

Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 8, 2003.*

Decided Sept. 10, 2003.

Alphan K. Tsoi, Angela Y. Suh, Monterey Park, CA for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration *&*Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Los Angeles District Counsel, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, San Francisco, CA, John L. Davis, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

*810Before PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM**

Zhe Xiao Zhou, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his applications for asylum and withholding of deportation. The transitional rules of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 apply, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). *See Kalaw v. INS,*133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997). We review the IJ’s adverse credibility finding for substantial evidence. *Lopez-Reyes v. INS,*79 F.3d 908, 911 (9th Cir.1996). We grant the petition, and vacate and remand for further proceedings.

The IJ erroneously concluded that Zhe Xiao Zhou was not credible because he testified to certain details regarding his alleged persecution by local communist officials that were not included in his asylum application. *See id.*(“It is well settled that an applicant’s testimony is not per se lacking in credibility simply because it includes details that are not set forth in the asylum application.”). Moreover, the IJ failed to provide an adequate reason for rejecting Zhe Xiao Zhou’s explanation for the omissions. *See Garrovillas v. INS,*156 F.3d 1010, 1014 (9th Cir.1998) (“inconsistencies of less than substantial importance for which a plausible explanation is offered[ ]” are improper bases for an adverse credibility finding).

PETITION GRANTED; VACATED and REMANDED.

**

 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.