alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUANA DE LEON-BORAYO,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 10-72723

Agency No. A027-211-797

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 12, 2011** 

Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

Juana De Leon-Borayo, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying her motion to reopen deportation

proceedings under section 203(c) of the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central

FILED

JUL 20 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-72723

American Relief Act (“NACARA”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 

We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen,

Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1187 (9th Cir. 2001), and we deny the

petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion by denying De Leon-Borayo’s

motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed after the September 11,

1998, filing deadline, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.43(e)(1), and De Leon-Borayo’s

ignorance of the deadline and her status before the September 11, 1998, deadline

was not caused by circumstances beyond her control, see Socop-Gonzalez, 272

F.3d at 1193 (equitable tolling available in circumstances beyond a “garden variety

claim of excusable neglect.”); cf. Albillo-De Leon v. Gonzales, 410 F.3d 1090,

1099 (9th Cir. 2005) (NACARA deadline tolled where petitioner missed deadline

because of representative’s deception).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
**EXHIBIT 13**CEO AND CFO CERTIFICATION**     In connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Infineon Technologies AG (the“Company”) for the annual period ended September 30, 2006, as amended by Amendment No. 1 theretofiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), WolfgangZiebart, as Member of the Management Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Peter J.Fischl, as Member of the Management Board and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each herebycertifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities 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.     This certification will not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. Thiscertification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under theSecurities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent that theCompany specifically incorporates it by reference.Date:March 30, 2007       /s/Dr. Wolfgang Ziebart         Wolfgang Ziebart    Member of the Management Board and    Chief Executive Officer         /s/Peter J. Fischl         Peter J. Fischl    Member of the Management Board and    Chief Financial Officer  
 **
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

 

:

MARIA URRUTIA-CRUZ, :

:

Plaintiff, :

:

v. :

:

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL :

SECURITY :

Defendant. :

 :

 Civil No. 11-3885 (ES)

OPINION AND ORDER

SALAS, Judge

Plaintiff Maria Urrutia-Cruz (“Urrutia-Cruz”) filed a complaint on July 6, 2011, that opened

the above captioned case in this Court. (Doc. No. 1.) It appears that:

1. The Clerk of the Court will not file the complaint unless the person seeking relief pays

the entire applicable filing fee in advance or the person applies for and is granted in forma pauperis

status pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. See Local Civil R. 5.1(f).

2. The filing fee for commencing a civil action in this court is $350.00. See 28 U.S.C. §

1914(a). 

3. Urrutia-Cruz did not prepay $350.00; rather, she submitted an application to proceed in

this matter in forma pauperis (IFP application), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (IFP Application;

Doc. No. 1-1.)

4. Having considered Urrutia-Cruz’s IFP application, the Court concludes that Urrutia-Cruz

has adequately established that her financial condition renders payment of the $350.00 filing fee a

hardship.

Case 2:11-cv-03885-ES Document 2 Filed 07/12/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 8
Therefore, for the foregoing reasons;

IT IS THIS 12th day of July, 2011, hereby

ORDERED that Urrutia-Cruz’s IFP application is GRANTED;

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court FILE Urrutia-Cruz’s complaint. 

 /s/ Esther Salas 

ESTHER SALAS, U.S.D.J.

Page 2 of 2

Case 2:11-cv-03885-ES Document 2 Filed 07/12/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 9
#### Mercer *v.*The Houston Guano & Warehouse Co. *et al.*

1. Where one who had been engaged in the business of selling commercial fertilizers had sold out the business and his entire stock of goods, the mere fact that he retained notes received for the purchase of the same would not be evidence sufficient to prove *360his continuance in the business, as a trader, after the making of such sale.

2. It appearing from the evidence, fairly construed, that the defendant, at the time of the filing of the plaintiffs’ petition, had ceased to be a trader, it was error to grant the injunction and appoint a receiver.

January 28, 1895.

Petition for injunction, etc. Before Judge Griggs. Terrell county. November 23, 1894.

J. H. Guerry, J. A. Laing and J. W. "Walters, for plaintiff in error. L. C. Hoyl, L. L. Brown, J. G. Parks, Hall & Hammond, Payne & Tye and Marion Erwin, *contra.*

Simmons, Chief Justice.

This case was brought under the “trader’s act” of 1881. (Code, §§3149(a) *et seq.)*We have repeatedly held that this act is to be construed strictly, and that to entitle creditors to the relief provided for therein, it must appear that the debtor was engaged in business as a. trader at the time of the filing of the petition. *(Comer & Co.*v. *Coates & Co.,*69 *Ga.*491, 493; *Blanchard & Burrus*v. *Vansyckle,*70 *Ga.*278; *Coates & Co.*v. *Allen,*71 *Ga.*787.) And under the ruling in the ease last cited, the mere fact that the debtor, after having sold out his business and stock of goods, retains notes received for the purchase of the same and is engaged in collecting them, is not sufficient to prove his continuance in the business as a trader.

It appears from the evidence in this case, that the defendant sold out his buggy business on July 16th, 1894, his warehouse and fertilizer business on August 1st, 1894, and the remainder of his stock of guano on October 18th, 1894. The petition was not filed until November 19th, 1894. At that time the defendant was engaged simply in collecting what was due him and the bank of which he was president. The defendant and the parties to whom he sold out his business, stock of *361guano, etc., testified that the sales were absolute and made in good faith; and the evidence introduced in behalf of the plaintiffs fails to show the contrary. Under this state of facts, the plaintiffs were not entitled to proceed against the defendant under the act referred to, and it was error to grant the injunction and appoint a receiver. *Judgment reversed.*
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**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 ThermoEnergy Corporation (the "Company")
      on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report"), I, Dennis C.
      Cossey, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to the
      best
      of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec.
      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.





Date:
      May
      20, 2008




By: /s/
      Dennis C.
      Cossey


Name:
      Dennis C. Cossey


Title:
      Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
HOUSEHOLD DATA

ANNUAL AVERAGES

30. Unemployed total and full-time workers by duration of unemployment

[Numbers in thousands]

Duration of unemployment

Total Full-time workers

Unemployed Percent distribution Unemployed Percent distribution

2020 2021 2020 2021 2020 2021 2020 2021

Total unemployed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,947 8,623 100.0 100.0 10,222 7,246 100.0 100.0

Less than 5 weeks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,708 2,140 28.6 24.8 2,762 1,586 27.0 21.9

5 to 14 weeks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,728 1,981 36.5 23.0 3,656 1,651 35.8 22.8

5 to 10 weeks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,204 1,325 24.7 15.4 2,440 1,088 23.9 15.0

11 to 14 weeks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,525 657 11.8 7.6 1,216 563 11.9 7.8

15 weeks and over. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,511 4,501 34.8 52.2 3,804 4,008 37.2 55.3

15 to 26 weeks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,516 1,164 19.4 13.5 2,059 1,029 20.1 14.2

27 weeks and over. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,995 3,337 15.4 38.7 1,745 2,979 17.1 41.1

27 to 51 weeks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,267 1,341 9.8 15.6 1,104 1,204 10.8 16.6

52 weeks and over. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 728 1,996 5.6 23.2 642 1,775 6.3 24.5

Average (mean) duration, in weeks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.5 28.7 – – 17.5 30.1 – –

Median duration, in weeks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.7 16.5 – – 10.3 19.1 – –

NOTE: Full-time workers are unemployed persons looking for full-time work (35 hours or more per week) or on layoff from full-time jobs. Updated population controls are

introduced annually with the release of January data. Dash indicates no data or data that do not meet publication criteria (values not shown where base is less than

35,000).

1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                          5
<CIK>                                     0000884888
<NAME>                          SunPharm Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                       1
<CURRENCY>                                       USD

<S>                                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                           APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                             JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                    1
<CASH>                                       404,813
<SECURITIES>                                 249,216
<RECEIVABLES>                                129,656
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             748,908
<PP&E>                                        78,293
<DEPRECIATION>                                22,262
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               943,870
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        701,066
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                      367
<COMMON>                                         693
<OTHER-SE>                                21,440,781
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 943,870
<SALES>                                            0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              16,497
<CGS>                                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             975,926
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (959,429)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (959,429)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                (959,429)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (0.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.14)


</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

December 28, 2011 

p1219 

Order 

 

December 28, 2011 

143582 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 143582 

 COA: 298298 

Montcalm CC: 2009-012653-FH 

ADAM KEITH ANDERSON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 14, 2011 

judgment 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.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1



                            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 ThermoEnergy Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dennis
C. Cossey, Chief Executive Officer and Principal 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 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 operations of the Company.

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.


/s/ Dennis C. Cossey
---------------------------
Dennis C. Cossey
Chief Executive Officer and
Principal Financial Officer
August 16, 2004
#### Janece MICKENS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION MISSION SYSTEMS & SYSTEMS (MS2), Defendant-Appellee.

No. 12-1856.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 13, 2012.

Decided: Dec. 26, 2012.

Janece Mickens, Appellant Pro Se. Jo-leen Okun, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Janece Mickens appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Lockheed Martin Corporation (“Lockheed Martin”) in Mickens’ employment discrimination action. We affirm.

Mickens first asserts that the magistrate and district court judges exhibited bias against her because of her pro se status. After reviewing the available record, we conclude that the instances Mickens notes in her informal brief were nothing more than the “judge[s’] ordinary efforts at courtroom administration[,]” *Liteky v. United States,*510 U.S. 540, 556, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994), and provide no basis for concluding that the judges exhibited any bias against Mickens.

As to Mickens’ remaining arguments on appeal, we have thoroughly reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the grant of summary judgment to Lockheed Martin for the reasons stated by the district court. *Mickens v. Lockheed Martin Corp.,*No. 1:11-cv-01117-LMB-TCB, 2012 WL 2673148 (E.D.Va. July 5, 2012). We dispense with *267oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### APPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA 

### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT JOHNNY TIMOTHY DRIVER,

Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. Case No. 2D20-3099 September 15, 2021 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Anthony Rondolino, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender and Carol J. Y. Wilson, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee and Blain Goff, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. SLEET, ATKINSON, and STARGEL, JJ., Concur.2

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                  (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the accompanying Annual Report of Centillium Communications, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2006 (the "Report"), I, Linda C. Reddick, Interim Chief Financial Officer 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 Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended; and

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



|Dated: March 13, 2007 | /s/ Linda C. Reddick
                   Linda C. Reddick Interim Chief Financial Officer
|--------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
<PAGE>

Exhibit 32.1

                        CERTIFICATION OF CEO 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 Ezcomm Enterprises, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the period ending May 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Peter Braun, as
President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.

By: /s/ Peter Braun
    -------------------------
Peter Braun
CEO and CFO
August 29, 2004
80

Table 35. Multiple jobholders and multiple jobholding rates by sex and race, May of selected years, 

1970-2006, not seasonally adjusted

(Numbers in thousands)

Multiple jobholders

Number

Percent of 

all multiple 

jobholders

1970........ 78,358 4,048 636 15.7 3,412 5.2 2.2 7.0 5.3 4.4 

1971......... 78,708 4,035 765 19.0 3,270 5.1 2.6 6.7 5.3 3.8 

1972......... 81,224 3,770 735 19.5 3,035 4.6 2.4 6.0 4.8 3.7 

1973....... 83,758 4,262 869 20.4 3,393 5.1 2.7 6.6 5.1 4.7 

1974......... 85,786 3,889 867 22.3 3,022 4.5 2.6 5.8 4.6 3.8 

1975......... 84,146 3,918 956 24.4 2,962 4.7 2.9 5.8 4.8 3.7 

1976....... 87,278 3,948 911 23.1 3,037 4.5 2.6 5.8 4.7 2.8 

1977......... 90,482 4,558 1,241 27.2 3,317 5.0 3.4 6.2 5.3 2.6 

1978......... 93,904 4,493 1,281 28.5 3,212 4.8 3.3 5.8 5.0 3.1 

1979....... 96,327 4,724 1,407 29.8 3,317 4.9 3.5 5.9 5.1 3.0 

1980......... 96,809 4,759 1,549 32.5 3,210 4.9 3.8 5.8 5.1 3.2 

1985......... 106,878 5,730 2,192 38.3 3,537 5.4 4.7 5.9 5.7 3.2 

1989......... 117,084 7,225 3,109 43.0 4,115 6.2 5.9 6.4 6.5 4.3 

1991........ 116,626 7,183 3,129 43.6 4,054 6.2 5.9 6.4 6.4 4.9 

1994........ 122,946 7,316 3,343 45.7 3,973 6.0 5.9 6.0 6.1 4.9 

1995....... 124,554 7,952 3,727 46.9 4,225 6.4 6.5 6.3 6.6 5.2 

1996........ 126,391 7,846 3,494 44.5 4,352 6.2 6.0 6.4 6.4 5.1 

1997........ 129,565 8,197 3,800 46.4 4,398 6.3 6.4 6.3 6.5 5.7 

1998........ 131,476 8,126 3,688 45.4 4,438 6.2 6.1 6.3 6.3 5.5 

1999........ 133,411 7,895 3,778 47.9 4,117 5.9 6.1 5.8 6.0 5.5 

2000........ 136,685 7,751 3,667 47.3 4,084 5.7 5.8 5.6 5.9 4.9 

2001........ 137,121 7,540 3,626 48.1 3,914 5.5 5.7 5.3 5.6 5.3 

2002........ 136,559 7,247 3,511 48.4 3,736 5.3 5.5 5.1 5.5 4.7 

2003........ 137,567 7,338 3,498 47.7 3,841 5.3 5.4 5.3 5.5 4.3 

2004........ 138,867 7,258 3,605 49.7 3,653 5.2 5.6 4.9 5.3 5.1 

2005.........141,730 6,895 3,402 49.3 3,493 4.9 5.2 4.6 5.4 4.4 

2006.........144,041 7,641 3,778 49.4 3,863 5.3 5.7 5.0 5.3 5.4 

Year Total

employed

Multiple jobholding rate1

Total

Women

Men Total Women Men White

Black or 

African

American 2

1 Multiple jobholders as a percent of all employed

persons in specified group.

2 Data for years prior to 1977 refer to the black-andother population group.

NOTE: Data from 1994-2006 are not strictly

comparable with data for prior years. For an explanation,

see "Historical Comparability" under the Household Data 

section of the Explanatory Notes and Estimates of Error

in Employment and Earnings. Comprehensive surveys of

multiple jobholders were not conducted in 1981-84, 1986-

88, 1990, and 1992-93.

SOURCE: Current Population Survey, U.S.

Department of Labor, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

80