alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-1374 TIVO, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. ECHOSTAR CORPORATION, ECHOSTAR DBS CORPORATION, ECHOSTAR TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, ECHOSPHERE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ECHOSTAR SATELLITE LLC, and DISH NETWORK CORPORATION,

Defendants-Appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

in case no. 2:04-CV-01, Judge David Folsom.

ON MOTION Before MICHEL, Chief Judge LOURIE and BRYSON, Circuit Judges. BRYSON, Circuit Judge.
ORDER EchoStar Corporation et al. (EchoStar) move for a stay, pending appeal, of the order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (1) holding EchoStar in contempt of its previous injunction, (2) enjoining EchoStar, and (3) requiring that EchoStar take certain steps in light of its contempt holdings. TiVo, Inc. opposes. EchoStar replies. The Association for Competitive Technology, Inc. moves for leave to file a brief amicus curiae in support of TiVo regarding the motion. EchoStar opposes. The Association replies.In deciding whether to stay an injunction, pending appeal, this court "assesses

the movant's chances of success on the merits and weighs the equities as they affect the parties and the public." E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 835 F.2d 277, 278 (Fed. Cir. 1987); see also Standard Havens Prods. V. Gencor Indus., 897 F.2d 511 (Fed. Cir. 1990). To prevail, a movant must establish a strong likelihood of success on the merits or, failing that, must demonstrate that it has a substantial case on the merits and that the harms factors militate in its favor. Hilton v. Braunskill 481 U.S. 770, 778 (1987). Without prejudicing the ultimate disposition of this case by the merits panel, we determine based upon the arguments raised in the motions papers that EchoStar has met its burden of demonstrating the requisites for a stay of the order, pending appeal. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT: The motion for a stay of the order is granted. The motion for leave to file an amicus brief is granted. (3) The briefing schedule is expedited. EchoStar's opening brief is due no later than July 17, 2009. TiVo's brief is due no later than August 25, 2009. EchoStar's reply brief and the joint appendix are due no later than September 4, 2009. The case will be placed on the November calendar, if practicable.

2009-1374 2

### FOR THE COURT



# JUL 0 1 2009 Date /s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk cc: Seth P. Waxman, Esq. Donald R. Dunner, Esq. s19 thatilit5IST"

JUL 01 2009
JAN HOR8Aa CLERK



### 2009-1374 3
**Exhibit 32.2**SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION*In connection with the Quarterly Report of Croghan Bancshares, Inc. (the “Corporation”) on Form10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Kendall W. Rieman, Treasurer of the Corporation,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-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 SecuritiesExchangeAct of 1934; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial conditionand results of operations of the Corporation.        Date: October 26, 2006 /s/  Kendall W. Rieman   Kendall W. Rieman, Treasurer   (Principal Financial Officer)   * This certification is being furnished as required by Rule 13a-14(b) under the Securities ExchangeAct of1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, andshallnot be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to theliability ofthat Section. This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into anyfiling under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act, except as otherwise stated in suchfiling.
22
Exhibit 23.1





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM








We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-254802 on Form N-2 of our report dated March 2, 2022, relating to the consolidated financial statements, financial highlights, and related notes of TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp. (the “Company”) appearing in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021 (the “Annual Report”), and of our report dated March 2, 2022 on the financial information in the Annual Report set forth under the heading “Liquidity and Capital Resources – Senior Securities,” which is attached as an exhibit to the Annual Report.





/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP


San Francisco, California


March 2, 2022
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

BENJAMIN LOPEZ AYALA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 10-71959

Agency No. A095-787-470

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 27, 2011** 

Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. 

Benjamin Lopez Ayala, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for

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

immigration judge’s removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252. We review de novo constitutional questions and questions of law, Khan v.

FILED

OCT 6 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-71959

Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 776 (9th Cir. 2009), and review for abuse of discretion the

denial of a request for a continuance, Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th

Cir. 2009). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Lopez Ayala’s conviction for inflicting corporal injury on his spouse, in

violation of California Penal Code § 273.5(a), is a crime of domestic violence

under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) that renders him ineligible for cancellation of

removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C); Vasquez-Hernandez v. Holder, 590 F.3d

1053, 1056-57 (9th Cir. 2010). 

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Lopez Ayala’s request for

a sixth continuance to allow him to seek post-conviction relief. See Sandoval-Luna

v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1247 (9th Cir. 2008) (agency did not abuse discretion

in denying a second continuance for alien to pursue alternative application for

relief).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Lopez Ayala’s contentions that are

unrelated to his final order of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a) (conferring

jurisdiction over final orders of removal). Lopez Ayala’s remaining contentions

are unpersuasive. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
<PAGE>   1


                                   EXHIBIT 11
                        COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                        Three Months Ended March 31,
                                                            2000        1999
                                                            ----        ----
                                                    (in thousand, except per share data)
<S>                                                 <C>                 <C>
BASIC

Income Before Cumulative Effect
   of Accounting Change                                   $395              $262
/ Weighted Average Shares                                2,601             2,658
                                                         -----             -----
   Per Share                                              0.15              0.10


Cumulative Effect of Accounting Change                    ----               (57)
/ Weighted Average Shares                                 ----             2,658
                                                         -----              ----
   Per Share                                              ----             (0.02)

                                                         -----             -----

Basic Earnings Per Share                                 $0.15             $0.08
                                                         =====             =====


DILUTED

Income Before Cumulative Effect
   of Accounting Change                                   $395              $262
/ Weighted Average Shares                                2,601             2,667
                                                         -----             -----
   Per Share                                              0.15              0.10


Cumulative Effect of Accounting Change                    ----               (57)
/ Weighted Average Shares                                 ----             2,667
                                                         -----             -----
   Per Share                                              ----             (0.02)

                                                         -----             -----

Diluted Earnings Per Share                               $0.15            $0.08
                                                         =====             =====

</TABLE>


Notes:
   - Weighted average shares outstanding have been adjusted to reflect the 10%
stock dividends in 2000 and 1999.

   - Where applicable, diluted share computations include the effects of
outstanding stock options.





                                       25
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>Davon Howard Banks, Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Appeal from three judgments of the Justice Court of the Town of Mount Pleasant, Westchester County (Nicholas C. Masselli, J.), rendered October 31, 2013. The judgments convicted defendant, upon his pleas of guilty, of two charges of obstructing governmental administration in the second degree and one charge of assault in the third degree, respectively. Defendant's appellate counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with Anders v California (386 US 738 [1967]) seeking leave to withdraw as counsel.</p><p>ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.</p><p>We are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by defendant's assigned counsel pursuant to <i>Anders v California</i> (386 US 738 [1967]), and, upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel's application for leave to withdraw as counsel is, therefore, granted (<i>see id.</i>; <i>Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.]</i>, 89 AD3d 252 [2011]; <i>People v Paige</i>, 54 AD2d 631 [1976]; <i>cf. People v Gonzalez</i>, 47 NY2d 606 [1979]).</p><p>Iannacci, J.P., Marano and Tolbert, JJ., concur.</p><br>Decision Date: May 25, 2016<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JOE RILEY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D18-2021

[September 27, 2018]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Geoffrey D. Cohen, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 00-6145CF10A.

Joe Riley, South Bay, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

TAYLOR, CIKLIN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 242 

To clarify the implementation and enforcement of Subpart B of the Travel 

Management Rule (36 CFR 212), relating to the designation of roads, 

trails, and areas for motor vehicle use, in administrative units of the 

National Forest System in California, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 7, 2011 

Mr. HERGER (for himself, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Mr. MCCARTHY of California, 

and Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To clarify the implementation and enforcement of Subpart 

B of the Travel Management Rule (36 CFR 212), relating to the designation of roads, trails, and areas for 

motor vehicle use, in administrative units of the National 

Forest System in California, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 242 IH

1 SECTION 1. IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF 

2 SUBPART B OF THE TRAVEL MANAGEMENT 

3 RULE ON NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LAND 

4 IN CALIFORNIA. 

5 (a) CONSIDERATION OF ROUTES NOT PREVIOUSLY

6 CONSIDERED.—No funds appropriated or otherwise made 

7 available to the Secretary of Agriculture may be used to 

8 implement or enforce Subpart B of the Travel Manage9 ment Rule (subpart B of part 212 of title 36, Code of 

10 Federal Regulations), relating to the designation of roads, 

11 trails, and areas for motor vehicle use, in an administra12 tive unit of the National Forest System in California un13 less the Secretary has completed post-Subpart B Project 

14 Level Trail Planning of unauthorized routes in the unit 

15 not considered in subpart B. 

16 (b) TREATMENT OF MAINTENANCE-LEVEL 3 

17 ROADS.—In implementing Subpart B of the Travel Man18 agement Rule in an administrative unit of the National 

19 Forest System in California, the Secretary of Agriculture 

20 may not treat a maintenance-level 3 road (as defined in 

21 the Forest Service Handbook) as a ‘‘highway’’ for pur22 poses of determining applicability of division 16.5 of the 

23 California Vehicle Code (section 38000 et seq.), relating 

24 to off-highway motor vehicles. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
OFFICE OF **THE AITORNEY**  **GENERAL** OF RxAs

Crosier**. ’** 

.

:jonorl;ble

R. L. Crooior,PaFe 2

The contmot dot33not bear the the Cozptrolloror the Attorney General. ti.:.t- i ir.Zcyd **is not**  cn attornsy p.tlaw. ym requs6t **our** opinion RG to VJhsther **or** ic c velld ons. approv61 of either You aloo nuviseii In subdmms, not 6nid ccntrnot

St k3 noterl thet unSor the contract a cons,iberc3i.e p6rt of i:r.

Zoy&(6 autloo 6re connectedwltii the collection

of delinquenttexee. Us ls rocguired to collect ad.6 en3 fieurca ana facts pertnlnln~ to or rmes62&y for tke collectionor Usllnqusnt tsses ana to gropzre pt-psrf3

arid QleUdhIg6 in lnetanco6wY~crs It 16 reasibls to 'k-in%

suLts for t:?e

oolleotlcnof doliriqasnt tcxe6, ! in Artlcls 7335c, Vernon's Civil Gtatutee, it lo provided thr.t *no contract 6?1cll be mde or entered into by the acn~ls61cns~a8

court in ccnnectlonMth the collcctlon of ,iisllnquent

taxes %:hera

the ooclpcnsstlcn

uniler euch oontmct 1s mora thsn.flrteen per cent of the znount colleoted: .* %lFl cmtmct nuet be .zpgrovad by both the ComptrolleranB

tfis Attorney Gsnsm.1 0r the.Stato of Texas both **i3.6** to subctmce me form.

. . . my-: contract fide in vlolatlon of (,1, Ii;716

Act shall be voib." Follculnq.thcprovlfilons of **5pAu** 6rt:ale73356 it ha been Etginltely e6tsbll6hcd **that** oon**Ii&** trmtt..ettcq%ed to be made by'counise~onors~oourts **in**

qmnectlon with collectionof c¶ellnqient tzxee ore abaolutely mid unless approved by'the St&e Comptrbllerend **Attor ney**  C*neral..E-U.te v. &Gill, 114 3. E. (2a).MO, by the Zupreize

Court; Za6terdcodv. HcnSer6cn County, 62 8, Y. (2a)~ 66, by the Comloaion of &meals;.Sylvan Sanders CoGpony v. scurryCounty, 77 S. W. peals. (26) $09, by ths CouPt of Civil **#.Q;**

It is tmncoe66ary for us to inquire further into the contraot In que6tlon since it falls squarely within the above cited cuaea. The icct that ths contmot dcee not **bear** the approval of the Ccrqtrcller an9 Attorney Censral. r6naer6the eme void rc~mIlc66 of anything else. **For** your lniornstion,Iye enclose copy or 3ur opinlcn Xc. 0-2959.

Yours very truly

LkTac4LF

Glcrnn R. Lmls GRL:LX Aedllatant E:;CLOSUFE 2

**.,,**

**‘ -**  

# ,i: ,.-.-----,,

.’ : I ..,;‘\ !-“

. ~-3 . .pw? i,....,,, ‘---I(
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 12


                                AMERIKING, INC.
               CALCULATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                               Dec. 30, 1997 to                    Dec. 31, 1996 to
                                                                March 30, 1998                      March 31, 1997
                                                            W/O PIK        With PIK             W/O PIK      With PIK
                                                            Dividends      Dividends            Dividends    Dividends
<S>                                                         <C>            <C>                  <C>          <C>
EARNINGS
Income (loss) before income taxes benefit                        (435)          (435)                (638)        (638)
Interest expense                                                4,008          4,008                2,945        2,945
Amortization of deffered financing costs                          199            199                  167          167
Portion of rents representative of interest                     1,722          1,722                1,244        1,244
Preferred stock PIK dividends                                      -             113                   -           113
                                                            ---------      ---------            ---------    ---------
Total earnings                                                  5,494          5,607                3,718        3,831
                                                            ---------      ---------            ---------    ---------

FIXED CHARGES
Interest expense                                                4,008          4,008                2,945        2,945
Amortization of deffered financing costs                          199            199                  167          167
Portion of rents representative of interest                     1,722          1,722                1,244        1,244
Preferred stock PIK dividends                                      -             113                   -           113
                                                            ---------      ---------            ---------    ---------
Total Fixed Charges                                             5,929          6,042                4,356        4,469
                                                            ---------      ---------            ---------    ---------

RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES                               0.93           0.93                 0.85         0.85
                                                            ---------      ---------            ---------    ---------

INSUFFICIENT EARNINGS TO COVER FIXED CHARGES                     (435)          (435)                (638)        (638)
                                                            ---------      ---------            ---------    ---------
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                             110
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,610
<ALLOWANCES>                                        14
<INVENTORY>                                      1,329
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,590
<PP&E>                                           2,296
<DEPRECIATION>                                     516
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,889
<BONDS>                                          1,298
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           120
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,687
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,000
<SALES>                                         13,190
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,190
<CGS>                                            6,122
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   15,689
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    14
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 141
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,588)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (76)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,512)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,512)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.22)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.5


CERTIFICATIONS


I, Brian K. Kobylinski, certify that:


1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 2 of the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Jason Industries, Inc.;


2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;





Date: April 29, 2020


/s/ Brian K. KobylinskiBrian K. KobylinskiPresident, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors (Principal Executive Officer)
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2475 

To authorize a project for hurricane and storm damage reduction at Surf 

City and North Topsail Beach, North Carolina. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 8, 2011 

Mr. MCINTYRE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To authorize a project for hurricane and storm damage reduction at Surf City and North Topsail Beach, North 

Carolina. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH, 

4 NORTH CAROLINA. 

5 The Secretary of the Army is authorized to carry out 

6 a project for hurricane and storm damage reduction at 

7 Surf City and North Topsail Beach, North Carolina, sub8 stantially in accordance with, and subject to the conditions 

9 described in, the Surf City and North Topsail Beach, 

10 North Carolina Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Report 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2475 IH

1 dated December 30, 2010, at an estimated total cost of 

2 $353,924,000, for periodic beach nourishment and moni3 toring over the 50-year economic life of the project. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS