alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2129

YEHEYIS NEGEY GETACHEW, Petitioner, versus U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A29-704-576) Submitted: January 18, 2000 Decided: March 16, 2000 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.Allan Ebert, LAW OFFICES OF ALLAN EBERT, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. David W. Ogden, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Karen Fletcher Torstenson, Assistant Director, RussellJ.E. Verby, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).1 This section has been repealed by the Illegal Immigration Reform Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), Pub. L. No.104-208, 110 Stat. 3009. However, because Getachew was in deportation proceedings on the effective date of the Act, the amendments do not apply. IIRIRA § 309(c)(1). 2 Section 306(b) of the IIRIRA, repealed 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(4), replacing it with 8 U.S.C.A. § 1252(b)(4) (West 1999). Again, because Getachew was in deportation proceedings before the effective date of the IIRIRA, the transitional rules provide for judicial review under § 1105a(a)(4) as it existed before enactment of the IIRIRA. IIRIRA § 309(c)(4). 2 PER CURIAM: Yeheyis Negey Getachew seeks review of an order of the Boardof Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing an appeal from the decision of the immigration judge and denying him political asylum, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1158 (West 1999), and withholding of deportation, 8 U.S.C. § 1253(h) (1994). 1 Getachew is a native and citizen of Ethiopia. We conclude that the decision of the Board is supported by“reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole. . . .” 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(4) (1994). 2 Therefore, we deny Getachew’s petition for review. We dispense withoral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of AppealsCAAP-11-000078331-AUG-201207:55 AM
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32.2

                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Croghan Bancshares, Inc. (the
"Corporation") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Allan E. Mehlow, Treasurer of the Corporation, 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 results of operations of the
      Corporation.

Date: July 29, 2004                                   /s/  Allan E. Mehlow
                                                      --------------------------
                                                      Allan E. Mehlow, Treasurer

* This certification is being furnished as required by Rule 13a-14(b) under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Section 1350 of Chapter
63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, and shall not be deemed "filed" for
purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability
of that section. This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act,
except as otherwise stated in such filing.

                                       35
golden_ex103.htm


EXHIBIT 10.3


 


 





 




  





1











  






 





 




  





2











  






 





 




  





3











  






 





 




  





4











  






 





 




  





5











  






 





 




  





6











  






 





 




  





7











  






 





 




  





8
EX -10.06 


 


BUSINESS OPERAITION
AGREEMENT


 


This Business Operation Agreement (the "Agreement")
is made by and between USChina Bull Holding Incorporation (the "Holding Inc") and China Bull Management Inc (“Management
Inc”) collectively the "Parties", on the twelfth day of June 2011, and revised on November 23, 2011.


 


Whereas the "Holding INC" is a Nevada registered stock
incorporation, and a subsidiary of China Education International Inc., and engaged in agency services specialized in financial
area to serve the Chinese private companies going publicly listing on SEC filing, exhibits, informative conference, road show,
lettering service and patent broker service, etc.


 


Whereas the "Management Inc” is a Nevada registered
independently incorporation, and manages the operation of "Holding INC".


 


Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual agreements promises
set forth herein, the parties agree as follows:


 


	“Management Inc” will take fully liabilities of "Holding INC”.
	"Holding INC” will make total payment of $29,169.37 to “Management Inc”
for service fee. This service fee will pay in period no less than 12 month and no more than 36 month commenced from July 2011,
fully on the discretion of “Management Inc”, or make cash of $29,169.37 as the additional paid-in capital based fully
on the discretion of Managements of both.
	"Holding INC” deposits $29,169.37 to “Management Inc” in June 2011.



 


 


 


s/s Andrew Chien         
          s/s___ Andrew Chien______


   General Manager of "Holding Inc"        
Chairman of “Management Inc”
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-40775

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DAMON EMANUEL ELLIOTT,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:08-CR-121-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and ELROD, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM:*

A jury found Damon Emanuel Elliott guilty of two counts of assault of a

corrections officer and one count of possession of contraband. He was sentenced

to a total of 150 months in prison. On appeal, he challenges the Government’s

use of a peremptory strike to excuse venireperson Margie Jacques, arguing that

it violated his constitutional rights in light of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79

(1986). In Batson, the Court delineated a three-step analysis for evaluation of

a defendant's claim that a prosecutor used a peremptory strike in a racially

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 24, 2012

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: 10-40775 Document: 00511832522 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/24/2012
No. 10-40775

discriminatory manner: (1) a defendant must make a prima facie showing that

the prosecutor exercised his peremptory challenges on the basis of race; (2) the

burden then shifts to the prosecutor to articulate a race-neutral reason for

striking the juror in question; and (3) the trial court must determine whether the

defendant carried his burden of proving purposeful discrimination. Moody v.

Quarterman, 476 F.3d 260, 266 (5th Cir. 2007).

We review the district court’s Batson determination for clear error. See

United States v. Denman, 100 F.3d 399, 404 (5th Cir. 1996). The district court’s

decision that a prosecutor had a race-neutral reason for striking a member of the

venire is a credibility determination which is entitled to deference. United

States v. De La Rosa, 911 F.2d 985, 991 (5th Cir. 1990).

The record supports the district court’s finding that the Government

provided racially-neutral reasons for the peremptory challenge at issue. 

Specifically, Jacques’s demeanor and her inattentiveness and disinterest were

valid reasons for her exclusion. See Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 360-

61 (1991); United States v. Lance, 853 F.2d 1177, 1180-81 (5th Cir. 1988); Moore

v. Keller Industries, Inc., 948 F.2d 199, 202 (5th Cir. 1991). Moreover, the

district court itself confirmed on the record that Jacques was “quick, timid, and

in a hurry to sit down and to disengage from this whole process.” The district

court was in the best position to observe and judge Jacques’s demeanor during

voir dire. See United States v. Valley, 928 F.2d 130, 136 (5th Cir. 1991). Elliott

has not shown that the district court’s decision was clearly erroneous. See

Denman, 100 F.3d at 404. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 10-40775 Document: 00511832522 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/24/2012
#### Maria De Lourdes Gonzalez SOBERANES, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-74950.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 3, 2007 *.

Filed Jan. 9, 2008.

Robert F. Jacobs, Esq. Santa Fe Springs, CA, for Petitioner.

CAC—District Counsel, Esq. Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Linda S. Wendtland, Esq., Luis E. Perez, Esq., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Maria De Lourdes Gonzalez Soberanes, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for *854review of the Board of Immigration Appeals decision affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of her application for cancellation of removal.

We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s discretionary determination that Soberanes failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. See *Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft,*327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003).

Soberanes’ contention that the IJ deprived her of due process by misapplying the law to the facts of her case does not state a colorable due process claim. *See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales,*424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005) (“[Tjraditional abuse of discretion challenges recast as alleged due process violations do not constitute color-able constitutional claims that would invoke our jurisdiction.”). *See also Sanchez-Cruz v. INS, 255*F.3d 775, 779 (9th Cir.2001) (holding that the “misapplication of case law” may not be reviewed). Finally, we deny Soberanes’ request to remand her case to the BIA for consideration of her parents’ pending applications for lawful permanent residency because the proper recourse is to file a motion to reopen with the BIA. *See Iturribarria v. INS,*321 F.3d 889, 896-97 (9th Cir.2003); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

**

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

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 100 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 100

         To provide sufficient time for legislation to be read.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 12, 2015

Mr. Paul submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                 Committee on Rules and Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
         To provide sufficient time for legislation to be read.

    Resolved, That (a) it shall not be in order for the Senate to 
consider any bill, resolution, message, conference report, amendment 
between the Houses, amendment, treaty, or any other measure or matter 
until 1 session day has passed since introduction for every 20 pages 
included in the measure or matter in the usual form plus 1 session day 
for any number of remaining pages less than 20 in the usual form.
    (b)(1) Any Senator may raise a point of order that consideration of 
any bill, resolution, message, conference report, amendment, treaty, or 
any other measure or matter is not in order under subsection (a). No 
motion to table the point of order shall be in order.
    (2) Paragraph (1) may be waived or suspended only by an affirmative 
vote of three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. All motions 
to waive under this paragraph shall be debatable collectively for not 
to exceed 3 hours equally divided between the Senator raising the point 
of order and the Senator moving to waive the point of order or their 
designees. A motion to waive the point of order shall not be amendable.
    (3) This resolution is enacted pursuant to the power granted to 
each House of Congress to determine the Rules of its Proceedings in 
clause 2 of section 5 of article I of the Constitution of the United 
States.
                                 <all>
```
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document











































 
 

  Exhibit 10.1    
    


2009
Annual Incentive Program 


        For
2009, the Company established an annual incentive program (the "2009 Annual Incentive Program") covering all non-union employees. This Program replaced all prior annual
cash incentive programs for non-union employees. 


        The
2009 Annual Incentive Program provides employee with a target opportunity based on the competitive level of target opportunity of employees in similar jobs at market reference
companies that is payable in cash if certain company financial performance, division financial performance, and individual performance targets during 2009 are attained. Depending on the level of
attainment, payment of the target opportunity may be from 0% to 150%. Payments are to be made in cash during the first two quarters following the year. 











QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.1
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 97-2470

_____________

Joseph W. Marti, Jr.; Mike Alsop; *

Greg McDonald; Ray Powers; James E. *

Swift; Steve Nelson; Milton Jones; *

Eric Cole, Jr.; Robert Edmound; Fred *

Hodges, Jr.; Mike Jablonowski; David *

First; Martin Hooper; *

*

Plaintiffs - Appellants, *

*

George Petsoff; *

*

Plaintiff, *

*

Mike Abernathy; Rick A. Atchley; *

John J. Caswell, Jr.; Maury Weiner; * Appeal from the United States

Paul Diecker; Joe Gaeta; Chris Cannon; * District Court for the

Henry Meyers; Barry McClintock; * Eastern District of Missouri.

Jerry Holloway; Nick Millick; Patrick *

Dougherty; Chris Schenk; * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Plaintiffs - Appellants, *

*

Keith Lombardo; *

*

Plaintiff, *

*

Dan Hensley; Joe Insalaco; *

*

Plaintiffs - Appellants, *

*

John Doe, I through XX; Salvatore *
The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, United States District Judge for the

1

Eastern District of Missouri.

-2-

Orlando; Byron Carson; *

*

Plaintiffs, *

*

Keith Moorehead; Daniel Murphy; *

Chris Cannon; Henry Meyers; Raymond *

Marti, III; John W. Turner; Clarence *

Aulbach, Jr.; *

*

Plaintiffs - Appellants, *

*

v. *

*

Grey Eagle Distributors, Inc.; *

*

Defendant - Appellee. *

_____________

Submitted: January 16, 1998

Filed: February 2, 1998

_____________

Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiffs in this lawsuit alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act

and asserted other claims against their employer, Grey Eagle Distributors, Inc. The

District Court, having granted Grey Eagle's motion to reconsider a previously granted 1

motion by the plaintiffs to amend the complaint by interlineation to add approximately

thirty new plaintiffs, then granted summary judgment for Grey Eagle on statute-of-
-3-

limitations grounds. In granting Grey Eagle's motion for reconsideration, the court

found that the addition of the approximately thirty new plaintiffs would be in direct

contravention of the court's order establishing a cut-off date for adding plaintiffs.

In this appeal, the plaintiffs contend the District Court abused its discretion by

granting Grey Eagle's motion for reconsideration. Having reviewed the case, we find

no abuse of discretion. We further find that the issues do not warrant extended

discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

Grey Eagle characterizes the appeal as frivolous and requests an award of

attorney fees incurred in its defense of the appeal. The plaintiffs' arguments are

convoluted and confusing, and some of them, we agree, are plainly frivolous. But even

though we discern no merit in any of the plaintiffs' arguments, we are not prepared to

say that the appeal as a whole is entirely frivolous. Accordingly, the request for

attorney fees is denied. Grey Eagle is, of course, entitled to recover its costs. See Fed.

R. App. P. 39; 8th Cir. R. 39A.

The decision of the District Court is affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
IIA 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 25 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 

States Code, of the final rule of the Administrator of the Environmental 

Protection Agency relating to ‘‘National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

for Ozone’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 17, 2015 

Mr. FLAKE (for himself, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. BARRASSO, Mrs. CAPITO, Mr. 

CASSIDY, Mr. COATS, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. COTTON, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. CRUZ, 

Mr. ENZI, Mrs. ERNST, Mrs. FISCHER, Mr. HATCH, Mr. HELLER, Mr. 

INHOFE, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. LANKFORD, Mr. LEE, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. 

MCCONNELL, Mr. MORAN, Mr. PAUL, Mr. RISCH, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. 

SESSIONS, Mr. THUNE, Mr. TILLIS, Mr. VITTER, Mr. WICKER, and Mr. 

ISAKSON) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice 

and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of 

title 5, United States Code, of the final rule of the 

Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 

relating to ‘‘National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

for Ozone’’. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Ad4 ministrator of the Environmental Protection Agency relatVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:18 Nov 18, 2015 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\SJ25.IS SJ25

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SJ 25 IS 

1 ing to ‘‘National Ambient Air Quality Standards for 

2 Ozone’’ (80 Fed. Reg. 65292 (October 26, 2015)), and 

3 such rule shall have no force or effect. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
**EXHIBIT 13.1**

**Annual Certification**

**Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United StatesCode), the undersigned officer of Avianca Holdings S.A. (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that: 

The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2016 of the Company fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company. 

Date: May 1, 2017 

 

Section 906 CEO Certification
Exhibit 35.6



|     |  |                                                                                                                        
|---- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|LOGO |  | Corporate Trust Services 
MAC R1204-010 9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045 
Tel: 410 884 2000 Fax: 410 715 2380

Citibank, National Association

388 Greenwich Street

14th Floor

New York, New York 10013



|Re: | Annual Statement of Compliance for GS Mortgage Securities Corporation II, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2013-GC10
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of February 1, 2013 (the Agreement), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator (Wells Fargo), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2016 (the Reporting Period):

(a) A review of Wells Fargos activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under such
officers supervision; and

(b) To the best of such officers knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of
its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

March 1, 2017



|              
|--------------
|              
|LOGO          
|BRIAN SMITH   
|Vice President



|                       |  |     
|---------------------- |  | ----
|Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. |  | LOGO
Exhibit 11.0 -  Computation of Earnings per Share

The following represents the computation of earnings per share reflecting the
assumption that the granted shares under the option and warrants plan which
would be dilutive will be exercised.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                            Three Months Ended                   Nine Months Ended
                                                         Sept 30,         Sept 30,           Sept 30,           Sept 30,
                                                           2000            1999                2000               1999

<S>                                                   <C>               <C>                <C>               <C>
Net Income (Loss)                                     $     77,868      $   (941,060)      $    708,219      $ (2,679,866)

Interest Expense relating to convertible debt                 --                --                 --                --

Adjusted Net Income (Loss) for computation            $     77,868      $   (941,060)      $    708,219      $ (2,679,866)
                                                      ============      ============       ============      ============

Weighted Average Common                                 12,272,792        11,982,132         12,133,675        11,939,001
Shares outstanding

Common share equivalents relating
to stock options, warrants, and convertible debt               509              --               12,669              --

Adjusted common and common equivalent
shares for computation                                  12,273,301        11,982,132         12,146,344        11,939,001
                                                      ============      ============       ============      ============

Net earnings (loss) per share:

Basic                                                         $.01             $(.08)              $.06            $(.22)
                                                              ====            ======               ====            =====

Diluted                                                       $.01             $(.08)              $.06            $(.22)
                                                              ====            ======               ====            =====
</TABLE>

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.