alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ryan BONNEAU, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 11-35807.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.*

Filed Jan. 4, 2013.

Ryan Bonneau, Lompoc, CA, pro se.

Ronald K. Silver, Natalie K. Wight, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Kelly A. Zusman, Assistant U.S., Portland, OR, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Federal prisoner Ryan Bonneau appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We vacate and remand with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

Bonneau’s petition challenges the Bureau of Prisons’ (“BOP”) calculation of good time credits for sentences he has already served. In particular, he argues the BOP should have aggregated two of his earlier sentences and awarded him an additional 52 days of good time credit. Bonneau also argues that he is entitled to 53 days of good time credit because, while he was serving an earlier sentence, the BOP transferred him out of a Residential Drug Treatment Program in violation of his due process rights.

The record reflects that Bonneau had fully served the custodial portion of the sentences he is attacking at the time he filed his habeas petition, and that his current incarceration arises from a new conviction and violations of supervised release. Therefore, the district court could not grant him any effective relief and it should have dismissed his petition for lack of a case or controversy. *See Burnett v. Lam-pert,*432 F.3d 996, 999-1000 (9th Cir.2005); *Nonnette v. Small,*316 F.3d 872, 875-76 (9th Cir.2002). We vacate the district court’s judgment and remand with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

VACATED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit
32








Written
Statement of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer


Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350








Solely for the
purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of North Shore Gas Company (the
"Company"), hereby certify, based on our knowledge, that the Annual Report on
Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the "Report")
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.








/s/ Lawrence T.
Borgard


Lawrence T.
Borgard


Vice Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer











/s/ Joseph P.
O'Leary


Joseph P.
O'Leary


Senior Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer











Date: February 28,
2008














This certification
accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 and shall not be deemed filed by North Shore Gas Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to North Shore Gas Company and will be retained by North Shore Gas
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
IV 

House Calendar No. 92

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 327

[Report No. 108–227] 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2800) making appropriations 

for foreign operations, export financing, and related programs for the 

fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 21, 2003

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered 

to be printed 

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2800) making 

appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, 

and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 

2 resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of 

3 rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee 

4 of the Whole House on the State of the Union for consid5 eration of the bill (H.R. 2800) making appropriations for 
2

HRES 327 RH 

1 foreign operations, export financing, and related programs 

2 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for 

3 other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dis4 pensed with. All points of order against consideration of 

5 the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to 

6 the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 

7 controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member 

8 of the Committee on Appropriations. After general debate 

9 the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five10 minute rule. Points of order against provisions in the bill 

11 for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived 

12 except as follows: sections 568(a)(3), 572, and 575. Where 

13 points of order are waived against part of a section, points 

14 of order against a provision in another part of such section 

15 may be made only against such provision and not against 

16 the entire section. During consideration of the bill for 

17 amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole 

18 may accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether 

19 the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be 

20 printed in the portion of the Congressional Record des21 ignated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amend22 ments so printed shall be considered as read. At the con23 clusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 

24 Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 

25 such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
3

HRES 327 RH 

1 question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 

2 amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 

3 motion except one motion to recommit with or without in4 structions. 
House Calendar No. 92

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 327

[Report No. 108–227] 

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2800) 

making appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes. 

JULY 21, 2003

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed
No. 1129.

#### Jesionowski, Administratrix, *v.*Boston & Maine Railroad.

May 20, 1946.

*Thomas C. O’Brien*and *John Edward Keefe, Jr.*for petitioner.

*Francis P. Garland*for respondent.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit granted.
<TABLE>
                                                                     Nicor Gas Company
                                                                     Form 10-K
                                                                     Exhibit 12.01


                                   Nicor Gas Company
             Computation of Consolidated Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                                      (thousands)

<CAPTION>



                           Year ended December 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             1999      1998       1997      1996       1995
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Earnings available to cover fixed charges:
<S>                        <C>       <C>        <C>       <C>        <C>
   Net income              $ 96,142   $ 94,119 $ 106,922  $ 107,106  $ 85,448

   Add: Income taxes         55,896     55,299    64,714     63,579    49,881

      Fixed charges          38,914     44,870    46,886     46,747    39,400

      Allowance for funds
        used during
        construction           (118)      (269)      (11)        (5)     (911)
                           --------- ---------- --------- ---------- ---------

                          $ 190,834  $ 194,019 $ 218,511  $ 217,427 $ 173,818
                           ========= ========== ========= ========== =========



Fixed charges:

   Interest on debt        $ 39,245   $ 42,624  $ 45,246   $ 43,762  $ 38,129

   Other interest charges
     and amortization of
     debt discount, premium,
     and expense, net          (331)     2,246     1,640      2,985     1,271
                           --------- ---------- --------- ---------- ---------


                           $ 38,914   $ 44,870  $ 46,886   $ 46,747  $ 39,400
                           ========= ========== ========= ========== =========

Ratio of earnings to fixed
  charges                      4.90       4.32      4.66       4.65      4.41
                           ========= ========== ========= ========== =========

</TABLE>
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Daryl Wayne Wright, * From the 244th District Court

of Ector County,

Trial Court No. C-18-1072-CR.

Vs. No. 11-21-00106-CR * April 21, 2022

The State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no 

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, 

the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
**UNITED STATES**SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION**WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

**FORM 10-K

ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the Fiscal Year Ended**December 31, 2005
 **                                                                           
Commission
Registrant; State of Incorporation
IRS Employer
File Number
Address; and Telephone Number
Identification No.   
001-07530**WISCONSIN GAS LLC            
20-3978942 
(A Wisconsin Limited Liability Company)  
231 West Michigan Street  
P.O. Box 2046  
Milwaukee, WI 53201  
(414) 221-2345  **                                                                        

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12 (b) of the Act:       None****************
#### Richard M. Hauzinger, Plaintiff, v Aurela G. Hauzinger, Respondent. Carl R. Vahl, Esq., Appellant.

[853 NYS2d 519]

Present-Scudder, P.J., Martoche, Centra, Green and Pine, JJ.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

BENOIT SAGET

, Appellant,

v.

HUNIA JOSEPH

, Appellee.

No. 4D2023

- 2404

[ May 2, 2024 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm

Beach County ; Rosemarie Scher , Judge; L.T. Case No.

502018DR008387XXXSB

.

Benoit Saget, Boca Raton, pro se.

Hunia Joseph, Delray Beach, pro se.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

K LINGENSMITH

, C.J., G ROSS and F ORST

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
EXHIBIT 23.2: CONSENT OF GRANT THORNTON, LLP
--------------------------------------------

We have issued our opinion dated March 28, 2003  accompanying  the  consolidated
financial statements included in the Annual Report of Greenbriar  Corporation on
Form  10-K for the year  ended  December  31,  2002.  We hereby  consent  to the
incorporation  by reference  of said report in the  Registration  Statements  of
Greenbriar Corporation on Form S-8 (File No. 33-50868 and 33-33985).


/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP

Dallas, Texas
March 28, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1997
<CASH>                                         440,781
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  320,278
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    445,554
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,330,180
<PP&E>                                       3,663,601
<DEPRECIATION>                                 181,136
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,328,281
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,880,724
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        14,078
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,328,281
<SALES>                                      1,553,626
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,553,626
<CGS>                                          850,673
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  850,673
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               630,806
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,473
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 70,674
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             70,674
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    70,674
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     $.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     $.01
        

</TABLE>
## f ' et . a ; 11 . . 4,, ,,it4v) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA PR 06-0544
IN RE PETITION OF CASEY C.NIXON FOR REINSTATEMENT TO ACTIVE STATUS IN THE BAR OF MONTANA 

# FILED A!

# 2 2020 O R D G

# , eenwood co Sup DO 

### rem.Court tate cyr montana
Casey C. Nixon has petitioned this Court for reinstatement to active status in the State Bar ofMontana. Nixon was placed on inactive status for failing to comply with the Rules for Continuing Legal Education for the reporting year ending March 31, 2019. Attached to the Petition is a letter from the State Bar stating that Nixon has now completed all CLE requirements for that reporting year. The Petition states that Nixon is working with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel to resolve two complaints filed against him in 2019,and that he has not committed any acts or omissions sanctionable under the Rules of Professional Conduct while on inactive status. It appearing that Nixon has satisfied the requirements for reinstatement, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition of Casey C.Nixon for reinstatement to active status in the State Bar ofMontana is GRANTED. Upon payment ofany remaining dues,fees,and the state license tax to the State Bar ofMontana,Nixon shall be reinstated. The Clerk is directed to provide copies ofthis order to the Petitioner and the State Bar ofMontana. DATED thisCA,
- day ofApril, 2020.
ChiefJustice 04/21/2020

Case Number: PR 06-0544/

2
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          38,375
<SECURITIES>                                    15,667
<RECEIVABLES>                                   54,558
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,371)
<INVENTORY>                                     11,489
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               126,857
<PP&E>                                          15,747
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (6,490)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 155,419
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           31,985
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           244
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     121,268
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   155,419
<SALES>                                         65,861
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               138,030
<CGS>                                           39,513
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   83,122
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  49
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 27,423
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,743
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             16,680
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    16,680
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .67
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .67
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

KAZIMIR CRAIG GROHOWSKI, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 204 MAL 2016 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 26th day of July, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED. 

Justice Mundy did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Aerosonic Corporation, (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended January 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Kevin J. Purcell, 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 results of operations of the Company.





Dated:     May 2, 2011
By:
/S/ KEVIN J. PURCELLKevin J. PurcellChief Financial Officer





This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-K pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  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.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Steven Michael TREVINO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-20543

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 30, 2008.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before REAVLEY, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Steven Michael Trevino presents arguments that he concedes are foreclosed by *United States v. Daugherty,*264 F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir.2001), which rejected a Commerce Clause challenge to the felon-in-possession-of-a-firearm statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). The appellant’s motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CARLOS RENE MONTEAGUDO

VILLEGAS, Petitioner,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 20

- 73516 Agency No. A202

- 184

- 573

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 8, 2021 * *
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges

. Carlos Rene Monteagudo

- Villegas, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention

* 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). 

# FILED

NOV 18 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 73516

Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jur isdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales , 453 F.3d 1182, 1184

- 85 (9th Cir. 2006). We d ismiss in part and d eny in part the petition for review.
As to the particular s ocial groups raised to the agency, Monteagudo

- Villegas
does not challenge the agency’s determination that they are not cognizable

. See
Martinez

- Serrano v. INS , 94 F.3d 1256, 1259

- 60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s o pening brief are waived). As to the particular social groups that Monteagudo

- Villegas raises for the first time in his opening brief, we lack jurisdiction to consider them

. See Barron v. Ashcroft , 358 F.3d 674, 677

- 78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency). Thus, Monteagudo

- Villegas’s asylum claim fail s
. In his opening brief, Monteagudo

- Villegas does not raise any argument challenging, and therefore waives, the BIA’s determination that he waived h is withholding of removal claim. See Martinez

- Serrano , 94 F.3d at 1259

- 60. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Monteagudo

- Villegas failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El
Salvador

. See Aden v. Holder , 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).3 20

- 73516

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate. PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.