alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7754

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CHORYA A. STATON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District

Judge. (CR-93-49)

Submitted: August 26, 1997 Decided: September 10, 1997

Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Chorya A. Staton, Appellant Pro Se. Arenda L. Wright Allen, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

A jury convicted Chorya A. Staton of attempting to possess

cocaine with intent to distribute and possession of heroin with

intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846

(1994). Staton appealed, arguing that his prosecution on the

charges contained in the superseding indictment violated the Speedy

Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161-3174 (1994) ("Act"). We remanded the

case to the district court with instructions to determine on what

date it received a copy of the Supreme Court’s order denying

Staton's petition for a writ of certiorariCa date critical to the

speedy trial calculation. See United States v. Staton, No. 95-

5355, 1996 WL 465841 (4th Cir. Aug. 16, 1996) (unpublished). On

remand, the district court determined that it received the Supreme

Court's order on December 14Cthe date on which it was filedCand

that no violation of the Act occurred. Staton appeals from that

order.

Staton contends on appeal that the district court had notice

of the Supreme Court's denial of his petition for a writ of certiorari on October 18, thereby making his trial untimely under the

Act. He failed to show, however, that the district court's factual

finding that the court received notice of the Supreme Court's

denial on December 14 was clearly erroneous. Because Staton's trial

began within the seventy-day period provided by the Act, we affirm.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
3

tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
EX-4.09



 





Exhibit 4.09




CERTIFICATE OF TRUST



OF


CITIGROUP CAPITAL XXVII



     This Certificate of Trust is being executed as of November 15, 2007 for the purposes of
organizing a statutory trust pursuant to the Delaware Statutory Trust Act, 12 Del. C. §3801 et seq.
(the “Act”).



     The undersigned, the trustees of Citigroup Capital XXVII, hereby certify as follows:



     1. Name. The name of the statutory trust being formed hereby is “Citigroup Capital XXVII”
(the “Trust”).



     2. Delaware Trustee. The name and business address of the trustee of the Trust which has its
principal place of business in the State of Delaware are as follows:


The Bank of New York (Delaware)

100 White Clay Center

Route 273

P. O. Box 6995

Newark, DE 19711




     3. Effective. This Certificate of Trust shall be effective immediately upon filing in the
Office of the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware.



1









 





Dated: November 15, 2007




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ John Gerspach
	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	John Gerspach, as Regular Trustee
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Eric L. Wentzel	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Eric L. Wentzel, as Regular Trustee
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Saul Rosen	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Saul Rosen, as Regular Trustee
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	THE BANK OF NEW YORK (DELAWARE),
	 	 	as Delaware Trustee
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Kristine K. Gullo	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Name: Kristine K. Gullo
	 	 	Title: Vice President
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	CITIGROUP INC.,
	 	 	as Sponsor
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Charles E. Wainhouse	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Name: Charles E. Wainhouse
	 	 	Title: Vice President






2
English Translation of Equity Transfer Contract dated as of May 31, 2007



 Exhibit 10.14 
 English Translation 
 Equity Transfer Contract 
 TRANSFEROR Tang Jinsong (hereinafter referred to as “Party A”) and TRANSFEREE Thinkplus Investments Limited (hereinafter referred to as “Party B”)
hereby enter into this Contract. 
 Article 1 (Purpose) 
 Party A agrees to transfer to Party B, and Party B agrees to accept the following shares (“Shares”): 
 Name of
shares: shares of Worksoft Japan Inc. 
 Number of shares: 685,900 
 Article 2 (Transfer Price and Method of Payment) 
 Party B will pay a transfer fee of JPY 24,000,000 to Party A to
purchase the above Shares. Method of payment is as follows: 
 First Installment: pay JPY 13,500,000 before June 7, 2007 
 Second Installment: pay JPY 10,500,000 before August 1, 2008 
 Article 3 (Transfer of Right) 
 The rights of the Shares shall be transferred when Party A and Party B sign this Contract. 
 Article 4 (Termination) 
 Where either party defaults
under this Contract, thus causing losses to the other party, the defaulting party shall compensate for such losses of the other party. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
both parties have executed this Contract in duplicate, one for each party. 
 May 31, 2007 
 (Address) 5-6-39-1004 Yasio, Tokyo-to Shinagawa-ku 
  

			
	Transferor (Party A):	 	 /s/ Tang Jinsong



			
	(Name):	 	Tang Jinsong


			
		
	Party B (Party B):	 	 /s/ Zhou Ying



			
	(Name):	 	Thinkplus Investments Limited
|   | (a)                                             |   | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2011 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                            |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|   | (b)                                             |   | the information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                  |
|   |                                            |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |   |
|   |                                            |   |
|   | /s/ Garrett E. Pierce                           |   |
|   | Garrett E. Pierce                          |   |
|   | Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer  |   |
|   | July 29, 2011                                   |   |
|   |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
SEPTEMBER 30, 1995 STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND BALANCE SHEET, AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. 
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                         462,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               38,387,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (665,000)
<INVENTORY>                                  9,468,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            49,985,000
<PP&E>                                      20,751,000
<DEPRECIATION>                            (18,255,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              80,489,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       68,561,000
<BONDS>                                     39,157,000
<COMMON>                                        78,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       29,566,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                (26,354,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                80,489,000
<SALES>                                     46,148,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           144,692,000
<CGS>                                       36,714,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              120,141,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               142,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           4,043,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                520,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            520,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   520,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Rajinder Kumar JHAMB, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-74229.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*526Submitted April 13, 2009.*

Filed April 29, 2009.

Ravit Rae Halperin, Immigration Law Offices of R. Rae Halperin, Lancaster, CA, for Petitioner.

Michelle Gorden Latour, Esquire, Assistant Director, OIL, Phillip Michael Truman, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, 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 **

Rajinder Kumar Jhamb, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen and reconsider. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion, *Cano-Merida v. INS,*311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002), and we deny the petition.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Jhamb’s second motion to reopen and reconsider as untimely and number-barred because it was filed over three years after the BIA’s final order, *see*8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(b)(2), (c)(2), and Jhamb failed to establish grounds for equitable tolling, *see Socop-Gonzalez v. INS,*272 F.3d 1176, 1193 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc) (equitable tolling available where “despite all due diligence, [the party invoking equitable tolling] is unable to obtain vital information bearing on the existence of the claim”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); *see also Alvarez-Garcia v. Ashcroft,*378 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir.2004) (regulations requiring that aliens in exclusion proceedings apply for adjustment of status with district director are not unconstitutional).

Jhamb’s remaining contentions are not persuasive.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
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 March 31, 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 17, 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.
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed August 14, 2024

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________
No. 3D23

- 0120 Lower Tribunal No. F20

- 2693

________________

Allyn Vento , 

### Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida , 

### Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami

- Dade County, Teresa Pooler , Judge.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Susan S. Lerner , Assistant Public Defender, for appell ant

. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Kayla Heather McNab, Assistant Attorney General, for appell ee

.

Before SCALES, MILLER and BOKOR , JJ.

PER CURIAM.2

Affirmed. See § 817.034(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (“ Any person who engages in

a scheme to defraud and obtains property thereby is guilty of organized

fraud

. . . .”); Id. (3)(b) ( “‘ Obtain ’ means temporarily or permanently to deprive

any person of the right to property or a benefit therefrom, or to appropriate

the property to one’s own use or to the use of any other person not entitled

thereto. ”); Id. (3)(c) ( “‘ Property ’ means anything of value, and includes : 1.

Real property, including things growing on, affixed to, or found in land; [and]

2. Tangible or intangible personal property, including rights, privileges,

interests, and claims

. . . .”) ; see also Tindal v. State

, 145 So. 3d 915, 919

(Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (“ In moving for acquittal, the defendant admits all facts

introduced in evidence, and every fair and reasonable inference must be

drawn in favor of the State.” ).
##### 



EXHIBIT 23.1 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM We consent to the
incorporation by reference in Registration Statements Nos. 333-46345 and 333-86487
of Sterling Bancshares, Inc. on Form S‐4 and in Registration Statements Nos. 33-75444, 33-75442,
33-84398, 33-85624, 333-16719, 333-57171, 333-102544, 333-105307 and
333‐116132 of Sterling Bancshares, Inc. on
Form S-8 of our reports dated March 4, 2005 relating to the consolidated financial statements of
Sterling Bancshares, Inc. and managements report on the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Sterling Bancshares, Inc. for
the year ended December 31, 2004. /s/ Deloitte & Touche
LLP
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Houston, Texas
March 4, 2005
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronnie Lynn SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-30582.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Aug. 16, 2006.*

Filed Sept. 29, 2006.

USGF-Office of The U.S. Attorney, Great Falls, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Evangelo Arvanetes, Esq., FDMT-Fed-eral Defenders of Montana, Great Falls, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: PREGERSON, NOONAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

The district court did not solicit the views of counsel before deciding whether to re-sentence Appellant Ronnie Lynn Smith under *United States v. Ameline,*409 F.3d 1073, 1085 (9th Cir.2005). This mistake requires us to re-remand the case for compliance with *Ameline. See United States v. Montgomery,*462 F.3d 1067, 1072 (9th Cir.2006).

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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          33,570
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   28,610
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,197
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                64,555
<PP&E>                                         569,145
<DEPRECIATION>                                 165,492
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 477,328
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,840
<BONDS>                                        249,290
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              305
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        16,506
<OTHER-SE>                                     140,696
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   477,328
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                37,680
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   43,880
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    91
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,992
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (13,458)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (4,389)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (9,069)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (420)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,489)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.06)
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 97 (Thursday, May 21, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 23893]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-11846]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-64,913]


Phillips Plastics Corporation, Custom Division, Including On-Site 
Leased Workers From Manpower, Phillips, WI; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on January 15, 2009 in response to a 
petition filed on behalf of workers of Phillips Plastics Corporation, 
Custom Division, Phillips, Wisconsin.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 22nd day of April 2009.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-11846 Filed 5-20-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF FIRST STATE CORPORATION FOR THE PERIOD ENDING SEPTEMBER
30, 1996.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                      25,105,000
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                      10,695,000
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             3,200,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 80,860,000
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      37,658,000
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                    332,571,000
<ALLOWANCE>                                  5,178,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             515,443,000
<DEPOSITS>                                 452,612,000
<SHORT-TERM>                                 6,397,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          5,226,000
<LONG-TERM>                                  4,823,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     4,550,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  41,835,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             515,443,000
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             22,545,000
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            4,209,000
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               197,000
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            26,951,000
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                          10,190,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          10,495,000
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                       16,456,000
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  350,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                             13,218,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              7,946,000
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 5,483,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.21
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                    906,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                   670,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             5,037,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  341,000
<RECOVERIES>                                   132,000
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            5,178,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           350,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### State v. Bracamontes

Case below: 181 N.C. App. 149

No. 047P07

Def’s (Cruz) PDR Under N.C.G.S. 7A-31 (COA06-259)

Denied 06/27/07

Hudson, J., Recused