alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Jose Jaime ROSALES-CONTRERAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-74147.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 13, 2009.*

Filed April 29, 2009.

Rosaura Del Carmen Rodriguez, Rios Cantor, P.S., Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.

Cindy S. Ferrier, Senior Litigation Counsel, Michele Yvette Frances Sarko, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, WWS-District Counsel, Esquire, Immigration and Naturalization Service Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, for Respondent.

Before: GRABER, GOULD, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Jaime Rosales-Contreras, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order denying his request for voluntary departure. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, *Montero-Martinez v. Ashcroft,*277 F.3d 1137, 1145 (9th Cir.2002), and we deny the petition for review.

Rosales-Contreras is statutorily ineligible for voluntary departure. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1229c(c) (voluntary departure is not permitted if the alien was previously permitted to voluntarily depart after having been found inadmissible).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Deborah Etzion, Appellant, v Rafael Etzion et al., Respondents.

Submitted September 21, 2009;

decided October 22, 2009

Reported below, 62 AD3d 646.

Motion by Women’s Bar Association of the State of New York for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the motion for leave to appeal herein granted and the brief is accepted as filed.
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








In connection with the Quarterly Report of Arête Industries, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John Herzog, Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 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 result of operations of the Company.







Dated:  December 21, 2010
By:
/s/ John HerzogJohn Herzog, Interim Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Arête Industries, Inc. and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Burnside, Appellant.

[870 NYS2d 911]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Gerald Harris, J.), rendered June 27, 2006, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender whose prior conviction was a violent felony, to a term of six years, unanimously affirmed.

The court sufficiently instructed the jury on the People’s obligation to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt *(see People v Knight,*87 NY2d 873 [1995]; *People v Whalen,*59 NY2d 273, 278-279 [1983]), and its refusal to deliver an expanded charge on identification does not warrant reversal. We note that the court’s general instructions on the evaluation of testimony included much of the same information that would be contained in a typical expanded identification charge.

*552Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim is without merit *(see People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; *see also Strickland v Washington,*466 US 668 [1984]). Concur— Saxe, J.E, Gonzalez, Sweeny, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.1 

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

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

 

The undersigned, Wayne P. Garten, President and Chief Executive Officer and John W. Swatek, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer  of Hanover Direct, Inc. (the "Company"),  each hereby certify that to his knowledge the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended April 1, 2006 of the Company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (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 for the period specified. 

 

Signed at the City of Weehawken, in the State of New Jersey, this 16th day of May, 2006. 

 

 
| /s/ Wayne P. Garten

Wayne P. Garten

President and Chief Executive Officer

 

/s/ John W. Swatek

JohnW. Swatek

Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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 32 CERTIFICATION OF
THE TRUSTEE*
OF THE SAN JUAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUST
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350 In connection with the accompanying report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended June 30, 2004, and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), I, Lee Ann Anderson, Vice President and Trust
Officer of TexasBank, on behalf of TexasBank, the Trustee of the San Juan Basin
Royalty Trust (the Trust), not in its individual capacity but solely as
Trustee of the Trust, hereby certify that:  1.
    
    The Report fully complies in all material respects with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (as explained in Note 1 to the Trusts financial statements
contained in the Report, in accordance with Securities and Exchange
Commission Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 47, released September 16,
1982, the Trust prepares its financial statements in a manner that
differs from generally accepted accounting principles; such
presentation is customary to other royalty trusts); and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Trust. TEXASBANK, AS TRUSTEE OF THE
SAN JUAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUSTBy:
    /s/ Lee Ann AndersonName:  Lee Ann AndersonTitle:    Vice President and Trust OfficerDate:  August 9, 2004 * The Trust has no executive officers.
#### Urner *v.*Kayton.

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

August 16, 1883.)

Patents for Inventions—Infringement—Costs.

Where, in an accounting for profits and damages for infringement of a patent, the orator has recovered on the merits, and the defendant has not prevailed upon any issue upon any distinct item in the case, the costs will not be apportioned, but defendant held liable for the whole amount.

In Equity.

*Mr. Comstock,*for orator.

*Mr. O’Callaghan,*for defendant.

Wiieblee, J.

The defendant, on accounting for profits and damages for infringement of patent, has, under order of court, paid the master’s fees, and moves for an apportionment of costs on the final decree for the orator for $100 profits. The orator has a substantial recovery on the merits for the wrongful invasion of his rights by the defendant. The defendant has not prevailed upon any issue upon any distinct item made in the case, so far as is made to appear. The costs are all the consequence of his wrongful acts for which the orator has recovered, and should be borne by him.

Motion for apportionment denied.
<PAGE>

                                       EXHIBIT 11.1

                               RICHEY ELECTRONICS, INC.
                          COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                  ($ AND SHARES IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)
                                     (UNAUDITED)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                     Quarter Ended        Nine Months Ended
                                                 ---------------------  ---------------------
                                                 Sept. 27,   Sept. 29,  Sept. 27, Sept. 29,
                                                   1996        1995       1996      1995
                                                 ---------   --------   --------   --------
<S>                                              <C>         <C>        <C>        <C>
PRIMARY EARNINGS PER SHARE:
   Net income used to compute primary
       earnings per share                          $1,754      $1,070     $4,631     $2,659
                                                 =========   ========   ========   ========

   Weighted average number of shares used to
       compute primary earnings per share           9,063       9,054      9,059      7,688
                                                 =========   ========   ========   ========

   Primary earnings per share                      $ 0.19      $ 0.12     $ 0.51     $ 0.35
                                                 =========   ========   ========   ========


FULLY DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE:
   Net income                                      $1,754      $1,070     $4,631     $2,659

   Add:  Interest on convertible subordinated
       notes payable, net of taxes                    617           -      1,451          -
                                                 ---------   --------   --------   --------
   Net income used to compute fully diluted
       earnings per share                          $2,371      $1,070     $6,082     $2,659
                                                 =========   ========   ========   ========
   Weighted average number of shares
       outstanding                                  9,063       9,054      9,059      7,688

   Add: Weighted average shares of
       convertible subordinated notes payable
       assuming conversion                          3,947           -      3,094          -
                                                 ---------   --------   --------   --------
   Weighted average number of shares used to
       compute fully diluted earnings per share    13,010       9,054     12,153      7,688
                                                 =========   ========   ========   ========
    Fully diluted earnings per share                $0.18       $0.12      $0.50      $0.35
                                                 =========   ========   ========   ========


</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

		NO. 2-04-375-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF T.B.B., A CHILD	

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

	FROM THE 30TH DISTRICT COURT OF WICHITA COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	----------

	We have considered appellant’s “Motion For Dismissal Of Direct Appeal.”  It is the court's opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the appeal.  See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

	Appellant shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

PER CURIAM	

PANEL D:	CAYCE, C.J.; LIVINGSTON and DAUPHINOT, JJ.

DELIVERED: January 27, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND CASH
FLOWS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-03-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-29-1997
<CASH>                                             248
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,861
<ALLOWANCES>                                       802
<INVENTORY>                                      4,939
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                27,871
<PP&E>                                          10,272
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,495
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  35,629
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,002
<BONDS>                                         12,401
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           323
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,819
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    35,629
<SALES>                                          7,559
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,762
<CGS>                                            5,705
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,705
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,884
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   282
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 352
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    347
<INCOME-TAX>                                       165
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                182
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       182
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00<F1>
<FN>
<F1>Not applicable
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 13.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and accompanies the Annual Report on Form 20-F (the “Report”) for the period ended December 31, 2005 of Banco Latinoamericano de Exportaciones, S.A. (the “Company”).

I, Carlos Yap, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify that:

|   | (i)    | The Report fully complies with the requirements of   Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                                                     |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                |
|   | (ii)   | The information contained in the Report fairly presents,   in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations   of the Company at the dates and for the periods presented. |

June 15, 2006

| By:    | /s/ CARLOS YAP S.           |   |
|--------|-----------------------------|--------|
|   |                             |   |
|   | Carlos Yap S.               |   |
|   | *Chief   Financial Officer* |   |
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 617 

To direct the Secretary of the Army to carry out the dredging project, 

Menominee Harbor, Menominee River, Michigan and Wisconsin. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 14, 2005 

Mr. LEVIN (for himself and Ms. STABENOW) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of the Army to carry out the dredging project, Menominee Harbor, Menominee River, Michigan and Wisconsin. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PROJECT FOR NAVIGATION, MENOMINEE HAR4 BOR AND RIVER, MICHIGAN AND WISCONSIN. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The project for navigation, Me6 nominee Harbor and River, Michigan and Wisconsin, de7 authorized on April 15, 2002, in accordance with section 

8 1001(b)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 

9 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)(2)), shall be carried out by the 
2 

•S 617 IS 

1 Secretary of the Army in accordance with section 101 of 

2 the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 482) at full 

3 Federal expense. 

4 (b) COSTS AND BENEFITS.—The Secretary of the 

5 Army shall carry out the project described in subsection 

6 (a) regardless of whether the benefits of the project exceed 

7 the estimated costs of the project. 

Æ
#### Navarone Productions, N.V., Plaintiff, v HSBC Gibbs Gulf Insurance Consultants Limited et al., Defendants. Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc., Interpleading Plaintiff-Respondent, v Navarone Productions, N.V., et al., Interpleaded Defendants-Respondents, and William Rambaum, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Eberhard Kuehl, Deceased, Interpleaded Defendant-Appellant, et al., Interpleaded Defendants.

Submitted October 19, 2009;

decided January 14, 2010

Reported below, 65 AD3d 868.

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that *929the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

The undersigned, Thomas C. Shull, President and Chief Executive Officer, and
Edward M. Lambert, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, of
Hanover Direct, Inc. (the "Company"), each hereby certifies that to his
knowledge the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June
28, 2003 of the Company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (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 for the period specified.

Signed at the City of Edgewater, in the State of New Jersey, this 7th day of
August, 2003.

                          /s/ Thomas C. Shull
               ---------------------------------------
                            Thomas C. Shull
                President and Chief Executive Officer

                         /s/ Edward M. Lambert
                     -----------------------------
                           Edward M. Lambert
                     Executive Vice President and
                        Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. James Edward KRAL, Appellant.

No. 08-2259.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: March 13, 2009.

Filed: May 27, 2009.

Jeffrey S. Paulsen, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, for Appellee.

Andrea K. George, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, for Appellant.

James Edward Krai, Elk River, MN, pro se.

Before MURPHY, MELLOY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

James Krai appeals the 12-month sentence the district court1 imposed after he violated the conditions of his supervised release. We affirm.

Athough the district court did not make a mechanical recitation of the section 18 *481U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and did not provide an expansive explanation of the sentence imposed, *see United States v. Larison,*432 F.3d 921, 923 (8th Cir.2006) (“A district court need not mechanically list every § 3353(a) consideration when sentencing defendant upon revocation of supervised release.”), the proceedings were procedurally adequate, see *United States v. Petreikis,*551 F.3d 822, 824 (8th Cir.2009) (acknowledging that revocation sentence must be procedurally sound). The district court was well aware of Krai’s violations of his supervised release conditions which led to an earlier revocation sentence of six months confinement. After his release from that revocation sentence, Krai continued to refuse to abide by the supervised release conditions. At the second revocation hearing which resulted in the sentence being appealed here, the court provided Krai several opportunities to agree to abide by the supervised release conditions and not face additional incarceration, and Krai rejected those opportunities. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1) (factor to be considered includes “the history and characteristics of the defendant”); *id.*§ 3583(e) (permitting imposition of revocation sentence after consideration of certain § 3553(a) factors).

We further conclude that Krai’s 12-month sentence was not substantively unreasonable. Accordingly, we affirm. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Larry STALLINGS, Defendant, Appellant.

No. 08-1246.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

April 23, 2009.

Stephen Feldman with whom Feldman & Feldman was on brief for appellant.

Donald Feith, Assistant United States Attorney with whom Thomas P. Colantuo-no, United States Attorney, was on brief for appellee.

Before LYNCH, Chief Judge, FARRIS * and BOUDIN, Circuit Judges.

*

 Of the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.

FARRIS, Circuit Judge.

Larry Stallings alleges that the district court erred by admitting evidence of his prior wire conviction because admitting the evidence violated both a New Hampshire district court local rule and Federal Rules of Evidence 403 and 404(b). We review applications of Federal Rules of Evidence 403 and 404(b) and district court local rules for abuse of discretion. *United States v. Ofray-Campos,*534 F.3d 1, 35 (1st Cir.2008); *Crowe v. Bolduc,*334 F.3d 124, 134 (1st Cir.2003); *Crowley v. L.L. Bean, Inc.,*361 F.3d 22, 25 (1st Cir.2004).

The court admitted Stallings’s prior conviction in the interest of justice because it found 1) the government did not act in bad faith; 2) the evidence was highly probative; and 3) there was no unfair prejudice to Stallings as a result of the untimeliness. District courts have “broad latitude in administering local rules,” *Air Line Pilots Ass’n v. Precision Valley Aviation,*26 F.3d 220, 224 (1st Cir.1994), and they may choose to forgive a party’s viola*7tion of a local rule. *See United States v. Diaz-Villafane,*874 F.2d 43, 47 (1st Cir. 1989). There was no abuse of discretion.

Stallings is incorrect that the district court’s admission of his prior wire fraud conviction violated Federal Rules of Evidence 403 and 404(b). Evidence of his prior conviction was offered to rebut Stallings’s claim that he was unaware that he was engaged in fraud. His prior conviction thus tended to prove intent, knowledge, and absence of mistake. Its admission did not violate Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). “Only rarely—and in extraordinarily compelling circumstances—will [this court] reverse a district court’s on-the-spot judgment concerning the relative weighing of probative value and unfair effect.” *United States v. Whitney,*524 F.3d 134, 141 (1st Cir.2008). There was no abuse of discretion.

AFFIRMED.