alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### L. *G.*McKNIGHT *&*SON CO. v. CRAMER FURNITURE CO.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

August 8, 1911.)

No. 931.

Courts (§ 314*) — Jurisdiction of Federal Courts — Citizenship of Parties.

A federal court is without jurisdiction on the ground of diversity of citizenship of an action by a corporation of another state against a corporation of a third state, which has no place of business in the state of suit, and on service on an officer of defendant who was not in the state on business of his corporation.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Courts, Cent. Dig. § 860; Dec. Dig. § 314.* • •

Diverse citizenship as a ground of federal jurisdiction, see notes to Shipp v. Williams, 10 C. C. A. 249; Mason v. Dullagham, 27 C. C. A. 298.]

In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts.

Action at law by the E. G. McKnight & Son Company against the Cramer Furniture Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error.

Affirmed.

Harvey H. Pratt and Owen A. Hoban, for plaintiff in error.

George Holden Tinkham, for .defendant in error.

Before ALDRICPI, BROWN, and DODGE, District Judges.

*

For other cases see same topic *&*§ number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, *&*Rep’r Indexes

PER CURIAM.

We are of the opinion that the Circuit Court was right in dismissing the plaintiff’s action at law, for want of jurisdiction, upon motion of the defendant.

The plaintiff in error, plaintiff below, the U. G. McKnight & Son Company, is a corporation of the state of Maine, having its usual place of business in Massachusetts. The defendant is a corporation of the state of North Carolina, having its usual place of business in that *49state, and having no place of business in the state of Massachusetts. The action was begun in the district of Massachusetts by service of summons upon its vice president, also a director, who was not in Massachusetts on business of the defendant corporation. The question of jurisdiction upon such facts as are above set forth, and upon such additional facts as are contained in the bill of exceptions, is so well settled to the contrary of the contention of the plaintiff in error that we need only refer to the following authorities: Shaw v. Quincy Mining Co., 145 U. S. 444, 12 Sup. Ct. 935, 36 L. Ed. 768; Keasbey v. Mattison Co., 160 U. S. 221-229, 16 Sup. Ct. 273, 40 L. Ed. 402; Ladew v. Tennessee Copper Co. (C. C.) 179 Fed. 245, s. c. 218 U. S. 357, 31 Sup. Ct. 81, 54 L. Ed. 1069; Mechanical Appliance Co. v. Castleman, 215 U. S. 437, 30 Sup. Ct. 125, 54 L. Ed. 272; Hoyt v. Ogden Portland Cement Co. (C. C.) 185 Fed. 889-898, et seq.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed, and the defendant in error recovers costs in this court.
#### In the Matter of Kenneth Robinson, Appellant, v Jeffrey Arlen Spinner et al., Respondents.

Decided April 2, 2013

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.
5

Alaska

Texas

Utah

Montana

California

Arizona

Idaho

Nevada

Oregon

Iowa

Colorado

Kansas

Wyoming

New Mexico

Missouri

Minnesota

Nebraska

Oklahoma

South Dakota

Washington

Arkansas

North Dakota

Louisiana

Illinois

Ohio

Florida

Alabama Georgia

Wisconsin

Virginia

Indiana

Michigan

Mississippi

Kentucky

Tennessee

Pennsylvania

North

Carolina

South

Carolina

West

Virginia

New Jersey

Maine

New York

Vermont

Maryland

New Hampshire

Connecticut

Delaware

Massachusetts

Rhode Island

Portland

Sacramento 

Phoenix

St. Paul

Tulsa OK City

Washington DC

NIGC FY19 GGR Distribution Map

$3.8B (‘18=$3.7B)

57 ops (‘18=55 ops)

$9.7B (‘18=$9.3B)

76 ops (‘18=73 ops)

$3.3B (‘18=$3.1B)

57 ops (‘18=59 ops)

$2.5B (‘18=$2.5B)

75 ops (‘18=73 ops)

$7.4B (‘18=$7.5B)

42 ops (‘18=38 ops)

$4.9B (‘18=$4.8B)

100 ops (‘18=95 ops)

FY19 GGR = $34.6B, 522 ops

$2.7B (‘18=$2.5B)

73 ops (‘18=72 ops)

Rapid City

$0.4B (‘18=$0.4B)

42 ops (‘18=36 ops)
#### CHUN ZHONG HUANG, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Attorney General, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Respondents.

No. 04-2606-ag.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Aug. 16, 2006.

Chun Zhong Huang, Brooklyn, NY, pro se.

Leura G. Canary, United States Attorney, Middle District of Alabama, James J. Dubois, Assistant United States Attorney, Montgomery, AL, for Respondent.

Present: DENNIS JACOBS, ROBERT D. SACK, PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Chun Zhong Huang petitions for review of an order of the BIA affirming *161Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Roxanne C. Hladylowycz’s decision ordering Huang’s removal to China and denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history of the case.

When the BIA summarily affirms the decision of the IJ without issuing an opinion, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4), this Court reviews the IJ’s decision as the final agency determination. *See, e.g., Twum v. INS,*411 F.3d 54, 58 (2d Cir.2005). We review the agency’s factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, under the substantial evidence standard, treating them as “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); *see, e.g., Zhou Yun Zhang v. INS,*386 F.3d 66, 73 & n. 7 (2d Cir.2004).

In this case, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. The IJ reasonably based her decision, in part, on Huang’s equivocal testimony as to the date of his wife’s alleged abortion. More importantly, the IJ reasonably found that Huang’s “total veracity and credibility” were called into question by his admission that he had lied when he told immigration officers at both his credible fear and airport interviews that he practiced Falun Gong. Finally, Huang was unable to offer sufficient corroborating evidence to rehabilitate testimony once it was called into question to this extent. *See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,*434 F.3d 144, 164 (2d Cir.2006); *Zhou Yun Zhang v. INS,*386 F.3d 66, 78 (2d Cir. 2004).

Because Huang’s withholding of removal claim was based on the same set of facts that the IJ found incredible in the context of his asylum claim, that adverse credibility determination precludes any success on the withholding claim as well. *Paul v. Gonzales,*444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir.2006); *Wu Biao Chen v. INS,*344 F.3d 272, 275 (2d Cir.2003). Huang did not appeal the IJ’s denial of CAT relief to the BIA, and, therefore, he has failed to exhaust that issue. *See Foster v. INS,*376 F.3d 75, 77 (2d Cir.2004).

Accordingly, Huang’s petition for review is DENIED. Having completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DENIED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34(d)(1).
##### 



Exhibit 15 LETTER IN LIEU OF CONSENT FOR REVIEW REPORT  August 6, 2004 Nextel Communications, Inc.
2001 Edmund Halley Drive
Reston, Virginia We have made a review, in accordance with standards of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States), of the unaudited interim financial
information of Nextel Communications, Inc. and subsidiaries
(the  Company) for
the periods ended June 30, 2004 and 2003, as indicated in our report dated
August 6, 2004; because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on
that information. We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004, is
incorporated by reference in Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration
Statement No. 33-91716 on Form S-8 to Form S-4 of Nextel Communications, Inc.,
Registration Statement No. 333-06521 of Nextel Communications, Inc. on Form
S-8, Registration Statement No. 333-06523 of Nextel Communications, Inc. on
Form S-8, Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration
Statement No. 333-26369 on Form S-8 to Form S-4 of Nextel Communications, Inc., Registration
Statement No. 333-42537 of Nextel Communications, Inc. on Form S-8 and Post-Effective Amendment No. 1
to Registration Statement No. 333-53429 of Nextel Communications, Inc. on Form S-8,
Registration Statement and Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration
Statement No. 333-1290 of Nextel Communications, Inc. on Form S-4, Registration
Statement No. 333-104076 of Nextel Communications, Inc. on Form S-3,
Registration Statement No. 333-113003 of Nextel Communications, Inc. on Form
S-8, and Registration Statement No. 333-116123 of Nextel Communications, Inc.
on Form S-8. We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under
the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration
Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act. /s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP McLean, VA
**EXHIBIT      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

|   | (1) | The                Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,                2007                (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Company 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all materials                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| **/s/                Frank B. Manning** |
|-----------------------------------------|
| Frank                B. Manning         |
| Chief                Executive Officer  |

----
EXHIBIT - 32


                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 Realmark Property Investors
Limited Partnership - VI A (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period
ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joseph M. Jayson, Individual General Partner and
Principal Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the
best of my knowledge:

         (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
                  the operations of the Partnership.


August 14, 2003                                 /s/ Joseph M. Jayson
---------------                                 ------------------------------
     Date                                       Joseph M. Jayson,
                                                Individual General Partner and
                                                Principal Financial Officer
Exhibit 12

                     ARISTAR, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

           COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                              (Unaudited)


                                         Year Ended December 31,
<TABLE>
<S>                      <C>         <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>
(Dollars in thousands)       1997        1996       1995       1994       1993

Income from operations
 before income taxes     $ 76,031    $ 99,518   $107,741   $101,311   $ 91,523

Fixed charges:
 Interest and debt
 expense on all
 indebtedness             128,887     120,758    114,917    102,224     98,600

Appropriate portion
 of rentals (33%)           3,565       3,292      3,359      3,020      3,276

Total fixed charges       132,452     124,050    118,276    105,244    101,876

Earnings available for
 fixed charges           $208,483    $223,568   $226,017   $206,555   $193,399

Ratio of earnings to
 fixed charges               1.57        1.80       1.91       1.96       1.90
</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Alexander Dockery, Also Known as John Harris, Appellant.

Submitted May 6, 2013;

decided May 30, 2013

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Robert S. Dean, Esq., Center for Appellate Litigation, 74 Trinity Place, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10006 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000             JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          71,596                       0
<SECURITIES>                                   630,700                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               702,296                       0
<PP&E>                                          42,947                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 745,243                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           34,038                       0
<BONDS>                                        320,000                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          1                       0
<COMMON>                                       462,070                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                  22,276,035                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   745,243                       0
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0                       0
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  238,874                  48,653
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                39,775                   (638)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (278,649)                (48,015)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (278,649)                (48,015)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                318,651                 203,075
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    40,002                 155,060
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.00                    0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00                    0.00


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5 
<RESTATED>
       

<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                      JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                        DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                7,294,707
<SECURITIES>                            210,007
<RECEIVABLES>                         6,260,748
<ALLOWANCES>                                  0
<INVENTORY>                           8,393,770
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     23,369,142
<PP&E>                               15,860,894
<DEPRECIATION>                        6,360,632
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       36,310,090
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 7,948,636
<BONDS>                               5,126,530
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                 58,569
<OTHER-SE>                           15,309,123
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         36,310,090
<SALES>                              49,381,765
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     50,148,529
<CGS>                                42,460,760
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        42,460,760
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                      7,123,888
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      592,414
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         (28,533)
<INCOME-TAX>                           (352,369)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      98,421
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                             98,421
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                               .01

<FN>
<F1>Accounts receivable are net of allowance of
     $317,000 at December 31, 1998.
<F2>Inventories are net of reserve of $559,000
     at December 31, 1998.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 23.2****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to RegistrationStatement No. 333-134206 on Form S-3; and in Registration Statement No. 333-46161 on Form S-8of our report dated February 28, 2007 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion andincludes an explanatory paragraph relating to the Company’s adoption of Statement ofFinancial Accounting Standards No. 158), relating to the financial statements and financialstatement schedule of Arizona Public Service Company and management’s report on the effectivenessof internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K ofArizona Public Service Company for the year ended December 31, 2006.Phoenix, Arizona
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 14 (Friday, January 23, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 4177]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-1355]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Notice of Commission Closing and Filing Deadlines

January 14, 2009.
    Take notice that January 20, 2009, Inauguration Day, is a legal 
public holiday for the Washington, DC, office of the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission.
    In accordance with section 385.2007 of the Commission's rules, 18 
CFR 385.2007 (2008), all filings and documents due to be filed on 
Tuesday, January 20, 2009, will be accepted as timely on the next 
official business day.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-1355 Filed 1-22-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
- II NATIONAL 

. INDIAN 

GAMING 

COMMISSION 

Mr. Larry Montgomery 

President 

Multimedia Games, Inc. 

7335 South Lewis, Suite 204 

Tulsa, OK 74136 

Dear Mr. Montgomery, 

MAR 2 8 1997 

This letter is in response to your letter dated February 11, 1997. 

The National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) and the United States 

Department of Justice have discussed whether the MegaMania game 

should be classified as Class II or Class III under the Indian 

Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), 25 u.s.c. 2701 et seq. There are 

concerns that certain elements of MegaMania could be viewed as 

Class III. 

In an effort to eliminate these concerns, you have indicated that 

you will alter MegaMania by making the following changes: 

1) the numbers or objects drawn for the bingo game will be 

drawn with a bingo blower instead of by an electronic number 

generator or other similar device; 

2) an act will be required by the card holder, after the balls 

are drawn, to daub the cards, instead of a fully automatic 

daubing system; 

3) an act will be required by the card holder to indicate a 

bingo to win, instead of a fully automatic system; and 

4) the "consolation game" will be deleted from the game. 

Please make these changes. We are hopeful that these changes will 

eliminate the concerns that have been expressed. 

Please stop play of the game as currently configured within the 

next 14 days. Before you resume play of a reconfigured game, 

please resubmit the game as changed in accordance with the above 

for NIGC review. Your submittal should include a complete 

description of the game as played along with any appropriate 

documentation. Please note that any additional changes anticipated 

to MegaMania should be submitted to the NIGC for review prior to 

implementation of such changes. 

Regarding the guidelines proposed in your letter, we do not believe 

it is appropriate for Multimedia Games to be proposing guidelines 

1441 L STREET, N.W. 9TH FLOOR WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 TEL.: 202-632-7003 FAX: 202-632-7066 
to the United States for determining that MegaMania is a Class II 

game. The NIGC makes such determinations based on our regulations ,._., and the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. 

I hope this information is helpful to you. 

Sincerely, 

~ ~ jlQQJ) 

Ada E. Deer 

Acting Chair
No. 947.

#### Magruder, Collector of Internal Revenue, *v.*Supplee et ux.

March 16, 1942.

*Solicitor General Fahy*for petitioner. *Messrs. Nathan J. Felsenberg*and *James M. Hoff a*for respondents.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit granted.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William M. Ward, Appellant.

[977 NYS2d 643]

Appeal from a judgment of the Cayuga County Court (Mark H. Fandrich, A.J.), *1359rendered April 10, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of rape in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of rape in the second degree (Penal Law § 130.30 [1]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the record establishes that he knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived the right to appeal *(see generally People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]), and that valid waiver forecloses any challenge by defendant to the severity of the sentence *(see id.*at 255; *see generally People v Lococo,*92 NY2d 825, 827 [1998]; *People v Hidalgo,*91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]). Present — Centra, J.P., Peradotto, Garni, Sconiers and Whalen, JJ.