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


SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549





FORM 8-K





CURRENT REPORT


Pursuant to Section 13 OR 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934





Date of report (Date of earliest event reported): June 8, 2015





Vail Resorts, Inc.


(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Charter)





Delaware001-0961451-0291762(State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation)(Commission File Number)(IRS Employer Identification No.)390 Interlocken CrescentBroomfield, Colorado80021(Address of Principal Executive Offices)(Zip Code)Registrant's telephone number, including area code:(303) 404-1800





Not Applicable(Former Name or Former Address, if Changed Since Last Report)





Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions:


[  ] Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)


[  ] Soliciting materials pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)


[  ] Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))


[  ] Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))











---







Item 2.02.  Results of Operations and Financial Condition.





On June 8, 2015, Vail Resorts, Inc. issued a press release announcing its results for the three and nine months ended April 30, 2015.  A copy of the press release is being furnished as Exhibit 99.1 to this Current Report on Form 8-K and is incorporated herein by reference.








Item 9.01.  Financial Statements and Exhibits.





(d) Exhibits.





A list of exhibits furnished herewith is contained on the Exhibit Index which immediately precedes such exhibits and is incorporated herein by reference.











---







SIGNATURES





Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.





Vail Resorts, Inc.Date: June 8, 2015By:/s/ Michael Z. BarkinMichael Z. BarkinExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer











EXHIBIT INDEX





Exhibit No.Description99.1Press Release, dated June 8, 2015, announcing fiscal 2015 third quarter results.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , 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.

November 25, 2013

h1118 

# Order

Clerk November 25, 2013

147311

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 147311

COA: 311907

Wayne CC: 08

- 017359

- FC

JOSEPH AVERY SEATON,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 30, 2013 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARTIN RAMOS-REYES,

Petitioner,

 v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney

General,

Respondent.

No. 18-72590

Agency No. A070-974-306

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 8, 2021** 

Portland, Oregon

Before: GRABER and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges, and R. COLLINS,*** District

Judge.

 

Petitioner Martin Ramos-Reyes seeks review of the Board of Immigration

Appeals’ (“BIA”) final order denying his requests for cancellation of removal,

FILED

NOV 16 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

*** The Honorable Raner C. Collins, United States District Judge for the

District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
withholding of removal, asylum, and protection under the Convention Against

Torture. We deny the petition in part and dismiss it in part.

1. The BIA correctly held that Petitioner’s conviction under Oregon’s law

prohibiting cockfighting constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude. In OrtegaLopez v. Barr, 978 F.3d 680, 687 (9th Cir. 2020), we deferred to the BIA’s

conclusion that a conviction under the federal cockfighting statute is a crime

involving moral turpitude. Petitioner’s argument that his conduct was dissimilar

from that in Ortega-Lopez because he was convicted merely of possessing a

fighting bird is unavailing. Oregon’s law allows conviction only if the owner

knows and intends that the bird will be used in cockfighting or trains the bird for

cockfighting. Or. Rev. Stat. § 167.428(2).

2. Because the BIA considered Petitioner’s “imputed nationality” argument

on de novo review, any error committed by the immigration judge was harmless. 

Brezilian v. Holder, 569 F.3d 403, 411 (9th Cir. 2009). Before us, Petitioner does

not challenge the BIA’s conclusion that, by submitting insufficient evidence of

imputed nationality, Petitioner was ineligible for withholding of removal.

3. We lack jurisdiction over Petitioner’s arguments as to the merits of his

asylum application. Petitioner does not challenge the determination that his

2
asylum application was time-barred, and thus he has failed to exhaust

administrative remedies. Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).

4. We lack jurisdiction over the question whether the immigration judge

violated due process when denying Petitioner’s application under the Convention

Against Torture. The BIA correctly determined that Petitioner did not

meaningfully raise this argument on appeal from the immigration judge’s decision

and, similarly, he fails to raise it sufficiently here. Id.

PETITION DENIED IN PART and DISMISSED IN PART.

3
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marco Antonio CHAVEZ, etc., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-50258.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Nov. 8, 2012.

Filed Dec. 19, 2012.

Curtis A. Kin, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, *495CA, Ann Luotto Wolf, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Santa Ana, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Correen W. Ferrentino, The Law Offices of Correen Ferrentino, Santa Ana, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: REINHARDT and THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and NAVARRO,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Gloria M. Navarro, United States District Judge for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Marco Antonio Chavez appeals the sentence imposed by the district court following Chavez’s guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute approximately 493.3 grams of pure methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(b)(1)(A). The district court sentenced Chavez to eighty-seven months, to be followed by a five-year term of supervised release. This sentence included a two-level enhancement for possession of a dangerous weapon during the commission of the offense.

We review the district court’s sentencing decision for abuse of discretion. *United States v. Armstead,*552 F.3d 769, 776 (9th Cir.2008). We review the district court’s underlying factual findings for clear error. *Id.*Based on the parties’ arguments and the Court’s examination of the record, we conclude that Chavez should have reasonably foreseen that his co-conspirators would possess a firearm during the execution of such a major drug transaction. *United States v. Garda,*909 F.2d 1346, 1350 (9th Cir.1990). Therefore, the district court did not clearly err in determining that the two-level sentencing enhancement for possession of a dangerous weapon was appropriate. *Id.*

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Shawn Macklin, Appellant.

[852 NYS2d 863]

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted robbery in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 160.15 [4]). Defendant contends that his waiver of the right to appeal is invalid because, in view of his age and lack of prior criminal history, County Court should have engaged in a more detailed colloquy. We reject that contention. The record establishes that defendant voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waived his right to appeal *(see People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]), and the valid waiver encompasses defendant’s challenge to the severity of the sentence *(see id.).*Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the court should have afforded him youthful offender status *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]) and, in any event, that contention is encompassed by defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal *(see People v Williams,*37 AD3d 1193 [2007]). Present— Martoche, J.P., Smith, Peradotto, Pine and Gorski, JJ.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 12/17/96 TENTH CIRCUIT

JOHN LAWRENCE DUBOIS, Petitioner-Appellant,

v. No. 96-6143 EDWARD EVANS, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA; and OKLAHOMA COURT OF APPEALS, Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Respondents-Appellees. (D.C. No. CIV-93-2040-R) (W. D. Ok.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before TACHA, BALDOCK, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges. **
Petitioner-Appellant John Dubois asserts in his petition for habeas corpus that he2

was convicted of duplicative counts of his indictment in violation of his federal double jeopardy rights. The district court denied the petition, and Petitioner then applied to this court for a certificate of appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We granted Petitioner’s application and ordered Respondents to file a brief because, on its face, the indictment did appear to violate Petitioner’s constitutional rights. Respondents’ brief filed with this court includes various attachments which were apparently not presented to the district court. As it is not this Court’s function to take evidence and find facts, we now remand this matter to the district court so that it may further consider the petition in light of the parties’ newly offered evidence.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Entered for the Court,

Bobby R. Baldock Circuit Judge
|                                                                            |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                            |  |  |
| TITLE OF EACH CLASS                                                        |   | NAME OF EACH EXCHANGE ON WHICH REGISTERED: |
| Common Shares ($1.25 par value)                                            |   | Chicago Stock Exchange |
|                                                                       |   | New York Stock Exchange |
| 6.375% Mandatory Convertible Preference Shares, Series A ($1.00 par value) |   | New York Stock Exchange |

----

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |
| 10(b)  | Form of Executive Severance Agreement |
|   |   |
| 31     | Certification pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |
|   | WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY |
|   | Date: | March 9, 2015 |
|   |   |   |
|   | By: | /s/ PATRICIA M. BEDIENT |
|   |   | Patricia M. Bedient |
|   |   | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
EXHIBIT 23.1    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
Forms S-8 No. 33-40414, 33-77968, 333-26379, 333-36070 and 333-87060 and in this
Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 2 of our report dated November 8, 2002, included in
Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1 with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Woodhead Industries, Inc. for the year ended September 28, 2002.



/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Chicago, Illinois
March 17, 2003
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6331

TIMOTHY YOUNG,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

LEVERN COHEN, Warden Ridgeland Correctional Institution,

 Respondent - Appellee,

and

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

 Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Florence. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (4:17-cv-01897-JMC)

Submitted: June 14, 2018 Decided: June 19, 2018

Before TRAXLER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Timothy Young, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Timothy Young seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

(2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the 

merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 

336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner 

must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the 

petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 

484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Young has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
[No. 22906-8-III.

Division Three.

December 6, 2005.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Justin D. White, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Spokane County, No. 01-1-00761-1, Kathleen M. O’Connor, J., entered April 8, 2004. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Brown, J., concurred in by Kato, C.J., and Sweeney, J.
WELLINGTON HALL, LIMITED AND SUBSIDIARIES

                   EXHIBIT 11 - EARNINGS PER SHARE COMPUTATION

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                  Years ended April 30

                                         1998              1997              1996
Basic
<S>                                        <C>               <C>               <C>         
   Weighted Average Shares Outstanding     2,289,887.00      1,839,887.00      1,689,887.00
                                         ==============    ==============    ==============

   Net Loss                              ($1,013,225.00)   ($  507,212.00)   $    73,574.00
                                         ==============    ==============    ==============

   Per share amount                      ($        0.45)   ($        0.28)   $         0.04
                                         ==============    ==============    ==============

Diluted

   Weighted Average Shares Outstanding     2,289.887.00      1,839.887.00      1,689,887.00
                                         ==============    ==============    ==============

   Diluted potential common shares
   outstanding during the years                       0                 0                 0

   Total Shares                            2,289,887.00      1,839,887.00      1,689.887.00
                                         ==============    ==============    ==============

   Net Loss                              ($1,013,225.00)   ($  507,212.00)   $    73,574.00
                                         ==============    ==============    ==============

   Per Share Amount                      ($        0.45)   ($        0.28)   $         0.04
                                         ==============    ==============    ==============
</TABLE>

                                      -16-
Exhibit 21.1
                                
                                
                    WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC.
                                
                   SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT
                                


     The Registrant (Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.) has no parents.

     The following list includes all of the subsidiaries of the Registrant
except nineteen wholly-owned inactive domestic subsidiaries of the Registrant
and/or its subsidiaries.

     All of the subsidiaries listed below are included in the Consolidated
Financial Statements. The Consolidated Financial Statements also include the
nineteen presently inactive domestic subsidiaries mentioned above.

     Each of the following subsidiaries is owned by the Registrant except
that two subsidiaries, the names of which are indented, are owned by the
subsidiary named immediately above each indentation.  All subsidiaries are
wholly-owned except for Bahamas Supermarkets Limited, which is owned
approximately 78% by W-D (Bahamas) Limited.


          Subsidiary                           State of Incorporation
     -------------------------                 ---------------------- 
     Astor Products, Inc.                             Florida
     Deep South Products, Inc.                        Florida
     Dixie Packers, Inc.                              Florida
     Fairway Food Stores Co., Inc.                    Florida
     Monterey Canning Co.                             California
     W-D (Bahamas) Limited                            Bahama Islands
          Bahamas Supermarkets Limited                Bahama Islands
               The City Meat Markets Limited          Bahama Islands
     Winn-Dixie Atlanta, Inc.                         Florida
     Winn-Dixie Charlotte, Inc.                       Florida
     Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc.                       Florida
     Winn-Dixie Midwest, Inc.                         Florida
     Winn-Dixie Montgomery, Inc.                      Kentucky
     Winn-Dixie Raleigh, Inc.                         Florida
     Winn-Dixie Texas, Inc.                           Texas

<PAGE>
Exhibit 21.0

WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC.

SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT

Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. (the Registrant) has no parents.

The
following list includes all of the active subsidiaries of the Registrant as of June 25, 2008.

Each of the following subsidiaries is owned by the
Registrant, except that five subsidiaries, the names of which are indented, are owned by the subsidiary named immediately above the indentation. All subsidiaries are wholly owned.



|                                   |  |                       
|---------------------------------- |  | ----------------------
|Subsidiary                         |  | State of Incorporation
|Deep South Products, Inc.          |  | Florida               
|Winn-Dixie Logistics, Inc.         |  | Florida               
|Winn-Dixie Warehouse Leasing, LLC  |  | Florida               
|Winn-Dixie Montgomery, Inc.        |  | Florida               
|Dixie Spirits, Inc.                |  | Mississippi           
|Winn-Dixie Montgomery Leasing, LLC |  | Florida               
|Winn-Dixie Procurement, Inc.       |  | Florida               
|Winn-Dixie Raleigh, Inc.           |  | Florida               
|Winn-Dixie Raleigh Leasing, LLC    |  | Florida               
|Winn-Dixie Supermarkets, Inc.      |  | Florida               
|Winn-Dixie Stores Leasing, LLC     |  | Florida               
|Winn-Dixie Properties, LLC         |  | Florida               
|Dixie Spirits Florida, LLC         |  | Florida               
|WIN General Insurance, Inc.        |  | South Carolina
EXHIBIT
12
 
 
 **AEP
TEXAS NORTH COMPANY**
 **Computation
of Consolidated Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges**
 **(in
thousands except ratio data)**
 
 **Year
      Ended December 31,****2000**
    
    **2001**
    
    **2002**
    
    **2003**
    
    **2004****FIXED
      CHARGES**Interest
      on Long-term Debt
    
    $
    18,017
    
    $
    16,842
    
    $
    17,174
    
    $
    21,627
    
    $
    21,274Interest
      on Short-term Debt
    
    
    6,503
    
    
    7,563
    
    
    4,051
    
    
    790
    
    
    929Estimated
      Interest Element in Lease Rentals
    
    
    403
    
    
    511
    
    
    660
    
    
    719
    
    
    513**Total
      Fixed Charges**
    
    $
    24,923
    
    $
    24,916
    
    $
    21,885
    
    $
    23,136
    
    $
    22,716**EARNINGS
      (LOSS)**Income
      (Loss) Before Extraordinary Loss and Cumulative Effect of
      Accounting Change
    
    $
    27,450
    
    $
    12,310
    
    $
    (13,677
    )
    $
    55,663
    
    $
    47,659Plus
      Federal Income Taxes
    
    
    5,315
    
    
    16,760
    
    
    2,806
    
    
    31,425
    
    
    17,351Plus
      State Income Taxes
    
    
    -
    
    
    1,973
    
    
    (1,363
    )
    
    3,851
    
    
    2,215Plus
      Provision for Deferred Income Taxes
    
    
    9,401
    
    
    (11,891
    )
    
    (12,275
    )
    
    (3,493
    )
    
    4,237Plus
      Deferred Investment Tax Credits
    
    
    (1,271
    )
    
    (1,271
    )
    
    (1,271
    )
    
    (1,520
    )
    
    (1,292
    )Plus
      Fixed Charges
    
    
    24,923
    
    
    24,916
    
    
    21,885
    
    
    23,136
    
    
    22,716**Total
      Earnings (Loss)**
    
    $
    65,818
    
    $
    42,797
    
    $
    (3,895
    )
    $
    109,062
    
    $
    92,886**Ratio
      of Earnings (Loss) to Fixed Charges**
    
    
    2.64
    
    
    1.71
    
    
    (0.17
    )
    
    4.71
    
    
    4.08
 
 Certain
amounts have been reclassified between interest on short-term and long-term debt
compared to periods prior to January 1, 2002. This reclassification had no efect
on the ratio.
 
 For the
year ended December 31, 2002, the Earnings to cover Fixed Charges was deficient
by $25,780,000.