alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. C ARLOS R

UIZ, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-50329

D.C . No. 3:13-c r-00754-LAB -1 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Larry A. B urns, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d July

7, 2014 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : SILVER

M AN, TALLM AN, a

nd R AW L INSON, C irc uit Judge s. C arlos R uiza ppe a ls the 78-m o nth se nte n c e im pose d by the distric t c ourt following his guilty

ple a to im porting 10.40 kilogra

m s of m e t ham phe tam ine and 

# FIL ED AUG 01 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).1.64 kilogra

m s of he roin into the

Unite d State s from

M e xic o in viola

tion of 21 U.S.C . §§ 952 a

nd 960. W e a ffirm

the se nte nc e . The distric t c ourt a

p plie d the prope r te st whe n it de n ie d R uiz a m inor role re duc t ion pursua

nt to Unite d State s Se nte nc ing Guide line § 3B 1.2(b). It wa s not re quire d to c om

p a re R uizto hy pothe tic a l pa

rtic ipa nts. Unite d State

s v . Rosas , 615 F.3d 1058, 1068 (9th C ir. 2010). Them e re fa c t tha t R uizwa s a c ourie r did not e ntitlehim to a

m inor role a djustm e nt. Unite d State s v . Hurtado , No. 13-50170, 2014 W L 3720241, a

t *3 (9th C ir. July 7, 2014); Unite d State s v . Rodrigue

zC astro , 641 F.3d 1189, 1193 (9th C ir. 2011). Thedistric t c ourt did not c l e arly e rr in finding tha

t R uiz wa s a run-of-the -m ill drug sm

uggle r for m one y , no be tte r, no worse . The substa

ntia l qua ntity of drugs a

nd R uiz ’ s a dm ission tha

t he ha d suc c e ssfully

c rosse d t he borde r with na

rc o tic s on four pre v ious oc c a sions support the d istric t c o urt’ s finding tha t R uizwa s not a

m i nor pa rtic ipa nt. Id. Fina lly , the distric t c ourt did not a b use its disc re tion whe n it se nte nc e d R uiz to 78 m onths, 30 mo nths be low the m inim um guide line se nte nc e , a fte r c onside ring the re le va nt se nte nc ing fa c tors a

nd tota lity

of the c irc um sta

nc e s . AFFIRM E D.

2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Sam Allen, Appellant.

[964 NYS2d 55]

—An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Margaret M. Clancy, J), rendered on or about September 28, 2010, said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties, due deliberation having been had thereon, and finding the sentence not excessive, it is unanimously ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Concur— Andrias, J.E, Saxe, DeGrasse, Richter and Gische, JJ.
#### Vladimir Kruglyak, Appellant, v New York University et al., Respondents.

[974 NYS2d 242]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered October 25, 2011, which granted defendant New York University’s motion to dismiss the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered November 29, 2012, which denied plaintiff’s motion to renew, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as abandoned.

Plaintiffs present claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata, since they could have been litigated in his prior action, which asserted claims against the same defendants arising out of the same events *(see O’Brien v City of Syracuse,*54 NY2d 353, 357 [1981]; CPLR 3211 [a] [5]).

We note that the first, third, and fourth causes of action should have been asserted in a CPLR article 78 proceeding, which carries a four-month statute of limitations, because they raise challenges to an academic institution administrative deter*646mination (see *Maas v Cornell Univ.,*94 NY2d 87, 92 [1999]; *Quintas v Pace Univ.,*23 AD3d 246 [1st Dept 2005]; CPLR 217 [1]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Renwick, DeGrasse, Feinman and Gische, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                 18 U.S.C. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection  with the Annual Report of MINHAS  ENERGY  CONSULTANTS,  INC. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended  December 31, 2007, as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Manmohan Minhas, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


                                       /s/ Manmohan Minhas
                                       ---------------------------------
Date: March 24, 2008                   Manmohan Minhas
                                       Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's interim financial statements for the three months ended January 31,
2000 and is qualified in its entirety by refernce to such finncial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000318523
<NAME> PETPLANET.COM, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> USD

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                             498
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          3
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   501
<PP&E>                                             169
<DEPRECIATION>                                      47
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     717
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,011
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            94
<OTHER-SE>                                      (3,388)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       717
<SALES>                                             38
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    38
<CGS>                                               45
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       45
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,074
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,263
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (3,344)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (3,344)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (3,344)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.36)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.36)


</TABLE>
#### Maria Esperanza Rodriguez CEJA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-73046.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*973Submitted Dec. 17, 2007.*

Filed Dec. 21, 2007.

Maria Esperanza Rodriguez Ceja, Santa Ana, CA, for Petitioner.

CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Kevin Conway, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: GOODWIN, REINHARDT and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying petitioner’s motion to reopen proceedings.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to reopen because the motion to reopen was untimely, numerically-barred and did not meet any of the regulatory exceptions. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), (3); *Rodriguez-Lariz v. INS,*282 F.3d 1218, 1222 (9th Cir.2002).

Accordingly, respondent’s unopposed motion for summary disposition is granted because the questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. *See United States v. Hooton,*693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam).

All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
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 Annual Report of First Surgical Partners Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Anthony F. Rotondo, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 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 results of operations of the Company.





August 1, 2011
By:
/s/ Anthony F. RotondoAnthony F. RotondoChief Executive Officer and President (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)









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 Annual Report of First Surgical Partners Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Don Knight, Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 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 results of operations of the Company.





August 1, 2011
By:
/s/ Don KnightDon KnightVice President, Finance (Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)
SERVICER
COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (Item 1123)
  GMAC
Mortgage, LLC
  SACO
2007-2






The
undersigned, a duly authorized officer of GMAC Mortgage, LLC, as servicer (the
"Servicer") pursuant to the applicable servicing agreement, does hereby certify
that:
  1. A review of
the Servicer's activities during the period covered by the Issuing Entity's report on
Form 10-K and of the Servicer's performance under the applicable servicing
agreement has been
made under my supervision.
  2. To the best
of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations
under the applicable servicing agreement in all material respects throughout
such period.
 
 IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 17th
day of March 2008.
   /s/ Anthony N.
Rezni
  
           GMAC Mortgage,
LLC
 1100 Virginia
Drive
 Ft.
Washington, PA 19034
##### 



SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549
   FORM 8-K CURRENT REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934   Date of report (Date of earliest event reported):   April 19, 2005 Inco Limited  Canada
    
    1-1143
    
    98-0000676(State or other jurisdiction
    
    (Commission
    
    (I.R.S. Employerof incorporation or organization)
    
    file number)
    
    Identification Number)
 145 King Street West, Suite 1500
Toronto, Ontario M5H 4B7
(Address of Principal Executive Offices) Companys telephone number, including area code:   (416) 361-7511 Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy
the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions: o     Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425) o     Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12) o     Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17
CFR 240.14d-2(b)) o     Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17
CFR 240.13e-4(c))




---



##### 



Item 2.02.     Results of Operations and Financial Condition  On April 19, 2005, Inco Limited issued a press release announcing its financial results for
the first quarter of 2005 and certain related information. A copy of the press release is
being furnished as Exhibit 99.1 to this Form 8-K and is hereby incorporated by reference. Item 8.01.     Other Events  As reflected in the copy of the press release furnished as Exhibit 99.1 to this Form 8-K,
Inco Limited announced on April 19, 2005 that its Board of Directors approved the
reinstatement of a quarterly cash dividend to holders of its Common Shares of $0.10 per
Common Share, with the initial quarterly dividend to be payable June 1, 2005 to common
shareholders of record on May 16, 2005.




---



##### 



SIGNATURE Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly
caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized. INCO LIMITEDBy:
    /s/   Stuart F. FeinerStuart F. FeinerExecutive Vice-President
General Counsel and Secretary Date:   April 19, 2005




---



##### 



EXHIBIT INDEX Exhibit No.
    
    Description of Exhibit
    
    Page(1)
    
    Exhibit 99(99.1)     Inco Limited press release dated April 19, 2005.
### No. 03-15-00314-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN

CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GU ARANTEE ASSOCIATION, OKLAHOMA PROPERTY AND CA SUALTY INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION, AND TEXAS PROPER TY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION, Appellants,

v.
HILL BROTHERS TRANSPORTATION, INC., Appellee.
Appeal from the 201st Judicial Dist rict Court, Travis County, Texas The Honorable Lora Livingston, Judge Presiding

________________________________ ________________________________
APPEARANCE AND DESIGNATIO N OF NEW LEAD COUNSEL

NOW COMES Hill Brothers Transporta tion, Inc., Appellee in the aboveentitled and numbered appeal, and files th is Appearance and Designation of New
Lead Counsel pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6. 1, and in support
thereof shows the Court the following:
Patrick J. Pearsall is no longer with the firm of Duggins Wren Mann &

Romero, LLP. Marnie A. McCormick here by appears as new lead counsel on
behalf of Hill Brothers Transportation, Inc., in the above -entitled and numbered
appeal. In compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.1(c), Appellee
offers the following contact information: ACCEPTED 03-15-00314-CV 7757032 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS 11/10/2015 9:36:43 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERKAPPROVED: Mamie A. McCormick State Bar No. 00794264 Duggins Wren Mann & Romero, LLP P. 0. Box 1149 Austin, Texas 78767-1149 Tel: 512-744-9300 Fax: 512-744-9399

Respectfully submitted,

DUGGINS WREN MANN & ROMERO, LLP

By: Isl Marnie A. McCormick Mamie A. McCormick State Bar No. 00794264 mmccormick@dwmrlw.com Adrian R. Ciechanowicz State Bar No. 24045659 aciechanowicz@dwmrlaw.com P. 0. Box 1149 Austin, Texas 78767-1149 (512) 744-9300 (512) 744-9399 fax

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE HILL BROTHERS TRANSPORTATION, INC.

# ~~ Patrick J. Pearsall State Bar No. 24047492

2

### 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
As required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9. 5, I certify that on the 10th day of November, 2015, the foregoing document was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the electronic ca se filing system of the Court, and that a true and correct copy was served on th e following lead counsel for all parties listed below via electronic service:

Dan Price S TONE 

### L OUGHLIN 

### & S WANSON 

### , LLP P. O. Box 30111 Austin, Texas 78755 dprice@slsaustin.com Counsel for Appellants

/s/ Marnie A. McCormick Marnie A. McCormick
#### Pro-Biz Enterprises, Inc., Appellant, v Christopher E. Kozan, Respondent.

[825 NYS2d 396]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Eugene M. Fahey, J.), entered July 18, 2005. The order, among other things, adjudged that the promissory note signed by defendant on August 29, 2001 is void and shall be surrendered and canceled.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in decision at Supreme Court (Michael L. McCarthy, J.H.O.). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P, Smith, Centra and Pine, JJ.
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**I, David Mathieson, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of RSC Holdings Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control overfinancial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controlsand procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and proceduresto be designed under oursupervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating tothe registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during theperiod in which this report isbeing prepared;  b) [Not Applicable]  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented inthis report our conclusions aboutthe effectiveness of thedisclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this report anychange in the registrant’sinternal control over financialreporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likelyto materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the designor operation of internal controlover financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves managementor other employees who have asignificant role in theregistrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.Date: March 14, 2008         /s/ David Mathieson   David Mathieson                    Senior Vice President, and
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 6 (Friday, January 9, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 1433]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00232]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[USITC SE-15-001]


Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: United States International Trade 
Commission.

TIME AND DATE: January 12, 2015 at 11:30 a.m.

PLACE: Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: 
(202) 205-2000.

STATUS: Open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
    1. Agendas for future meetings: none.
    2. Minutes.
    3. Ratification List.
    4. Vote in Inv. Nos. 701-TA-457 and 731-TA-1153 (Review) (Tow-
Behind Lawn Groomers from China). The Commission is currently scheduled 
to complete and file its determinations and views of the Commission on 
January 22, 2015.
    5. Outstanding action jackets: none.
    In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, 
not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the 
agenda of the following meeting. Earlier notification of this meeting 
was not possible.

    Issued: January 7, 2015.

    By order of the Commission.
William R. Bishop,
Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2015-00232 Filed 1-7-15; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
#### Serviss *v.*The Chattahoochee.

*(Circuit Court, E. D. New York.*

June 29, 1889.)

Shipping—Liability op Vessel—Negligence op Stevedore.

A stevedore, who had finished loading coal on a steam-ship from a canal-boat along-side,took the canal-boat’s line to a steam winch on the steamer to draw the canal-boat astern of the steamer. The latter’s propeller was in motion, and the stevedore gave no orders to have it stopped, nor did he direct the men on the canal boat to keep her away by poles. The propeller drew in the canal-boat, cut a hole in her, and sank her. The stevedore was an employe of the steamer. *Held,*that when the stevedore undertook to move the canal-boat up the slip he assumed the reponsibility of her navigation, at least until she was fully clear of the steamer’s side, and for his negligence the steamer was liable. Affirming 37 Fed. Iiep. 153.

In Admiralty. On appeal from the district court, 37 Bed. Rep. 153.

libel by Deborah A. Serviss against the steam-ship Chattahoochee, for damages by sinking libelant’s canal-boat. Brom a decree in favor of libelant, with an order of reference to ascertain the amount of damage, claimant appeals.

*Rice & Bijur,*for appellant.

*Hyland &*Zabriskie, for appellee.

Blatchford, Justice.

I concur in the views of the district court in regard to this case. 37 Bed. Rep. 153. Let a decree be entered for the libelant for $581.22, with interest from June 12,1888, and for the costs of the district court, taxed at $103, and for the costs of this court, to be taxed.