alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In re: G. Gregory WILLIAMS, Debtor, *583G. Gregory Williams, Appellant, v. Eli Levi; et al., Appellees.

No. 05-55541.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 8, 2006.*

Filed Oct. 12, 2006.

G. Gregory Williams, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.

Gary Kessler, Adams Aucoin & Kessler, LLP, Christie Gaumer, Esq., Los Angeles, CA, for Appellees.

Before: FARRIS, BOOCHEVER, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

G. Gregory Williams appeals pro se from the published decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP), which affirmed the bankruptcy court’s retroactive annulment of the automatic stay in his bankruptcy case. *See Williams v. Levi (In re Williams),*323 B.R. 691 (9th Cir. BAP 2005). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d), and we affirm the BAP.

We review the BAP decision de novo, and independently review the bankruptcy court’s decision. *See Carillo v. Su (In re Su),*290 F.3d 1140, 1142 (9th Cir.2002).

A bankruptcy court retains jurisdiction after dismissal in some circumstances to “ ‘interpret’ and ‘effectuate’ its orders,” including retroactive annulment of the automatic stay as occurred in this case. *See Aheong v. Mellon Mortgage Co. (In re Aheong),*276 B.R. 233, 239-40 & n. 8 (9th Cir. BAP 2002) (quoting *Tsafaroff v. Taylor (In re Taylor),*884 F.2d 478, 481 (9th Cir.1989)). Further, 11 U.S.C. § 362(d) *584authorizes the court to annul “the stay provided under [§ 362(a)].” The stay in Williams’ second bankruptcy case arose under § 362(a), and the statute does not limit annulment to stays arising in pending cases. We agree with the BAP that the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to enter the order.

We also conclude that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion when it annulled the stay. *See National Envtl. Waste Corp. v. City of Riverside (In re National Envtl. Waste Corp.),*129 F.3d 1052, 1054 (9th Cir.1997) (reviewing decision retroactively to lift automatic stay for abuse of discretion). The bankruptcy court properly balanced the equities when, although it acknowledged that the foreclosure sale may have violated the automatic stay, it considered several adverse factors and concluded that Williams had failed to commence a timely, appropriate proceeding to void the foreclosure sale. *See Fjeldsted v. Lien (In re Fjeldsted),*293 B.R. 12, 24-25 (9th Cir. BAP 2003) (court may consider whether debtor engaged in unreasonable conduct and how quickly debtor moved to set aside sale). We conclude that it was not an abuse of discretion retroactively to annul the automatic stay.

We have considered Williams’ reply brief. Williams’ motion to strike appellees’ brief and his request for monetary sanctions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kamal Abdallah, Appellant.

[975 NYS2d 673]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J.), rendered March 21, 2012, as amended May 16, 2012, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal sale of a controlled substance near school grounds and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender whose prior felony conviction was a violent felony, to concurrent terms of six years, unanimously affirmed.

To the extent defendant is making a legal sufficiency claim, it is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of *416justice. As an alternative holding, we reject it on the merits. We also find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). The evidence supports the jury’s rejection of defendant’s agency defense. There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s credibility determinations. To be the buyer’s agent, a person “must be a mere extension of the buyer,” who procures drugs “because the buyer has asked him to do so, but not out of any independent desire or inclination to promote the transaction” *(People v Argibay,*45 NY2d 45, 53-54 [1978]). A person who acts as a middleman or a broker between a seller and a buyer, “aiming to satisfy both, but largely for his own benefit, cannot properly be termed an agent of either” *(Argibay,*45 NY2d at 53). Although “the receipt of an incidental benefit does not in itself negate an agency defense” *(People v Echevarria,*21 NY3d 1, 21 [2013]), defendant’s demand for a $10 “transportation fee,” without which he refused to complete the $20 transaction, was more than an incidental benefit or tip *(see People v Lam Lek Chong,*45 NY2d 64, 74-76 [1978], *cert denied*439 US 935 [1978]). Concur — Tom, J.E, Saxe, DeGrasse, Richter and Clark, JJ.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### November 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


### 134716 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### v SC: 134716 COA: 277841 Oakland CC: 2006-209492-FH JASON CHRISTOPHER GREEN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 13, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

l1119 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 29, 2007

Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         580,370
<SECURITIES>                                   201,953
<RECEIVABLES>                                  165,773
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    328,314
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,298,127
<PP&E>                                       2,452,819
<DEPRECIATION>                                  17,497
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,148,591
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,252,659
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,600,000
<COMMON>                                       449,557
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,707,093
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,148,591
<SALES>                                        378,326
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               378,326
<CGS>                                          233,428
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  328,355
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,607
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (145,652)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (145,652)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (145,652)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.03)
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-51099

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MARCO ANTONIO MARTINEZ-PUENTE,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:09-CR-1842-1

Before GARWOOD, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Marco Antonio Martinez-Puente pled guilty to illegal reentry after

deportation. He was sentenced to 12 months of imprisonment, to be followed by

one year of non-reporting supervised release. On appeal, Martinez-Puente

argues only that his sentence is unreasonable because it is greater than

necessary to accomplish the goals of sentencing under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 1, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 09-51099 Document: 00511221686 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/01/2010
No. 09-51099

We do not reach the merits of the issue that he presents. Because

Martinez-Puente has prior to this date been released from federal custody and

removed from the United States, he is subject only to an undischarged term of

supervised release. We cannot grant what he requests because resentencing

would require Martinez-Puente to be present at a hearing to consider a new

sentence; his deportation creates a legal bar to such an appearance. United

States v. Rosenbaum-Alanis, 483 F.3d 381, 383 (5th Cir. 2007). This appeal

therefore has become moot.

The appeal is DISMISSED.

2

Case: 09-51099 Document: 00511221686 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/01/2010
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

					NO. 2-04-273-CR

KEITH ALEXANDER HOPKINS 						APPELLANT

	V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

	----------

	FROM COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT NO. 1 OF DENTON COUNTY

	----------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	----------

	We have considered appellant's “Withdrawal Of Appeal.”  The motion complies with rule 42.2(a) of the rules of appellate procedure.  Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a).  No decision of this court having been delivered before we received this motion, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.  See id.; Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).

								PER CURIAM

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

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: August 31, 2004
##### 



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 Annual Report of Arabian American Development Company (the Company) on
Form 10-K/A-1 for the year ending December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Nicholas Carter, Treasurer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 results of operations of the Company. /s/ NICHOLAS CARTER
Nicholas Carter, Treasurer June 14, 2005 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.
#### Banque Nationale de Paris, Respondent, v 1567 Broadway Ownership Associates et al., Defendants, and Chesapeake House, Inc., Appellant.

[608 NYS2d 635]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alfred Toker, J.), entered September 17, 1993, which in an action to foreclose a mortgage, granted the motion by the court-appointed receiver to compel defendant-appellant to attorn to him and pay to his managing agent all rents and other charges due and owing under the lease between defendants 1567 Broadway Owner*252ship Associates and Shark Leasing Corp., unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court correctly determined that appellant’s "sublease” with Shark Leasing Corp., under which the latter demised its entire interest in the entire premises for the entire time remaining on the prime lease, constituted an assignment *(Mann Theatres Corp. v Mid-Island Shopping Plaza Co.,*94 AD2d 466, 472, *affd*62 NY2d 930), notwithstanding a contingent right of re-entry *(Nedick’s Stores v T.S.N.Y. Realty Corp.,*156 AD2d 123, 124). In any event, no provision in the prime lease authorizes a setoff for the moneys allegedly expended to renovate and improve the premises as against the $100,000 minimum monthly rent specified in the prime lease. In fact, it expressly prohibits the same. Whatever claims appellant may have against Shark under the sublease can be pursued in a separate legal action *(see, Stewart v Long Is. R. R. Co.,*102 NY 601).

We have considered appellant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Ellerin, Wallach and Nardelli, JJ.
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  Annual  Report  of China Granite Corporation a Nevada
corporation  (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ending December 31,
2003,  as  filed  with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), Costas Takkas, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies
to  the  best  of  his  knowledge,  pursuant  to  18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
pursuant  to  ss.  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.

A  signed  original  of  this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided  to  China  Granite  Corporation, and will be retained by China Granite
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon  request.


/s/ Costas Takkas
--------------------------
Costas Takkas
Chief Financial Officer
August 3, 2005
<PAGE>
                                                                EXHIBIT 21

                            SUBSIDIARIES

Owned By                                   Jurisdiction of
Registrant                                 Incorporation      Percentage
----------                                 -------------      ----------

DCA Medical Services, Inc.(1)               Florida             66.0%

Dialysis Corporation of America             Florida             66.0%

Dialysis Medical, Inc.(2)                   Florida             52.8%

Dialysis Services of Florida, Inc. -
   Fort Walton Beach(2)                     Florida             52.8%

Dialysis Services of NJ, Inc. -
   Manahawkin(1)                            New Jersey          66.0%

Dialysis Services of NJ, Inc. -
   Toms River(2)                            New Jersey          66.0%

Dialysis Services of Pennsylvania, Inc. -
   Carlisle(1)                              Pennsylvania        66.0%

Dialysis Services of Pennsylvania, Inc. -
   Chambersburg(2)                          Pennsylvania        66.0%

Dialysis Services of Pennsylvania, Inc. -
   Lemoyne(1)                               Pennsylvania        66.0%

Dialysis Services of Pennsylvania, Inc. -
   Wellsboro(1)                             Pennsylvania        66.0%

Lytton Incorporated(3)                      Ohio                62.9%

Renal Services of Pa., Inc.(1)              Pennsylvania        66.0%

Techdyne, Inc.                              Florida             62.9%

Techdyne Livingston Limited(3)              Scotland            62.9%

Techdyne (Scotland) Ltd.(3)                 Scotland            62.9%

----------

(1) Owned 100% by Dialysis Corporation of America.
(2) Owned 100% by Dialysis Corporation of America - inactive.
(3) Owned 100% by Techdyne, Inc.
1

The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., Chief Judge, United States District

Court for the Western District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-1541

___________

Bola Ajiwoju, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Western

* District of Missouri.

University of Missouri- * 

Kansas City, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: January 27, 2010

Filed: February 3, 2010

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Bola Ajiwoju appeals the district court’s1

adverse grant of summary judgment

in his discrimination action. After careful de novo review, see Carter v. St. Louis

Univ., 167 F.3d 398, 400 (8th Cir. 1999), we conclude that summary judgment was

proper for the reasons stated by the district court. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th

Cir. R. 47B.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 113 (Monday, June 15, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 28279]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13919]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,884]


Progressive Stamping Company, Royal Oak, MI; Notice of 
Termination of Investigation

    In accordance with Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as 
amended, an investigation was initiated on May 5, 2009 in response to a 
petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of 
Progressive Stamping Company, Royal Oak, Michigan.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 15th day of May 2009.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-13919 Filed 6-12-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 112 (Friday, June 12, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28047-28048]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13803]


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

FEDERAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS ADVISORY BOARD


Release of Exposure Draft of Technical Bulletin 2009-1: Deferral 
of the Effective Date of Technical Bulletin 2006-1, Recognition and 
Measurement of Asbestos-Related Cleanup Costs

AGENCY: Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board.

ACTION: Notice of Release of Exposure Draft of Technical Bulletin 2009-
1, Deferral of the Effective Date of Technical Bulletin 2006-1, 
Recognition and Measurement of Asbestos-Related Cleanup Costs.

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

    Board Action: Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3511(d), the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, and the FASAB Rules of 
Procedure, as amended in April 2004, notice is hereby given that the 
Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) has released the 
Exposure Draft of Technical Bulletin 2009-1, Deferral of the Effective 
Date of Technical Bulletin 2006-1, Recognition and Measurement of 
Asbestos-Related Cleanup Costs.
    The purpose of this proposed technical bulletin is to defer the 
effective date of Technical Bulletin 2006-1, Recognition and 
Measurement of Asbestos-Related Cleanup Costs, for two years.
    The Technical Bulletin 2009-1 Exposure Draft is available on the 
FASAB home page http://www.fasab.gov/exposure.html. Copies

[[Page 28048]]

can be obtained by contacting FASAB at (202) 512-7350.
    Respondents are encouraged to comment on any part of the exposure 
draft. Written comments are requested by July 17, 2009, and should be 
sent to: Wendy M. Payne, Executive Director, Federal Accounting 
Standards Advisory Board, 441 G Street, NW., Suite 6814, Mail Stop 
6K17V, Washington, DC 20548.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wendy Payne, Executive Director, 441 G 
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20548, or call (202) 512-7350.

    Authority:  Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463.

    Dated: June 8, 2009.
Charles Jackson,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. E9-13803 Filed 6-11-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1610-01-M
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6982

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CARL BENIT COOPER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. Falcon B. Hawkins, Senior District

Judge. (CR-95-206)

Submitted: October 4, 2001 Decided: October 12, 2001

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carl Benit Cooper, Appellant Pro Se. Bruce Howe Hendricks, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Carl Benit Cooper appeals the district court order denying his

motion filed under Rule 35(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal

Procedure. We have reviewed the record and the district court

order and find no reversible order. Accordingly, we affirm on the

reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Cooper, No.

CR-95-206 (D.S.C. filed Mar. 2, 2001; entered March 6, 2001). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED