alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

      ( print page 42349)    
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than September 21, 2017.

*A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta*                     (Kathryn Haney, Director of Applications) 1000 Peachtree Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30309. Comments can also be sent electronically to                     *Applications.Comments@atl.frb.org:*

                    1.                     *Joseph Huntley Johnson III, Birmingham, Alabama, Lawrence Harris**Johnson, Birmingham, Alabama, and James Hughes Johnson, Tuscaloosa,**Alabama;*                     to become part of the Johnson Family Control Group and thereby retain voting shares of SNB Holdings, Inc., Slocomb, Alabama, and its subsidiary Friend Bank, Slocomb, Alabama.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 1, 2017.

Ann Misback,

Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2017-19006 Filed 9-6-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE P
美 中 通 道  


 

                                   EX-10.04                   

           CHINA BULL MANAGEMENT INC

                      Address:  665 Ellsworth Avenue

                                New Haven, CT 06511, USA

                        Email: uschien@uschinachannel.net

jcs23@yahoo.com

                     Telephone:  203-844-0809

                                 203-562-8899




                                                  January 30, 2011

                            Board Minutes




The Board has made following decisions:

      (1) The existing shares of common stock on the record day of January 30, 2011 will make 1 for 10 reverse split.




      (2) The company offers Andrew Chien to purchase 900,000 shares at par value $0.0001 and Kin Yuet Li 10,000 shares at par value $0.0001.




      (3) The Board will make sale part of its shares to shareholders at $0.5 /share. The proceeds will support the company’s operation. 




      (4) The company will make registration for all shares except officers’ before February 15, 2011.




                                    Andrew Chien

                                    President
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
 THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 YEAR-TO-DATE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS REPORTED ON FORM 10-Q
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY  BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001014920
<NAME>                        Optika Imaging Systems, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                    1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                              SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          5,858
<SECURITIES>                                    1,294
<RECEIVABLES>                                   5,332
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               13,299
<PP&E>                                          5,139
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,951)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 18,869
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           6,958
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            7
<OTHER-SE>                                     17,380
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   18,869
<SALES>                                         7,163
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               12,373
<CGS>                                             307
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   2,642
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               15,770
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (63)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,976)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,194)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,782)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,782)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.69)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.69)
        


</TABLE>
CIRCUIT COURT OF AMHERST COUNTY

#### Commonwealth of Virginia v. Daron Fairbanks McDaniel, Sr.

January 15, 1998

Case No. CR 10185-02

By Judge J. Michael Gamble

I am writing this letter to rule on the motion of the defendant to dismiss on the grounds of double jeopardy. The motion to dismiss on the grounds of double jeopardy is overruled. My reasons are set forth below.

The defendant is charged in the above indictment with grand larceny of an automobile of Donetta Jenkins. This event is alleged to have occurred on June 8,1997. The defendant was previously charged with grand larceny of the same automobile on the same date in the City of Lynchburg. The Lynchburg case was dismissed on July 15, 1997. The defendant bases his motion to dismiss the case on the grounds of double jeopardy on the dismissal of the Lynchburg case.

I have reviewed the testimony in the trial of the case in the Circuit Court of the City of Lynchburg on July 15, 1997. When the court struck the evidence in the Lynchburg case, the court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction of the grand larceny case because the grand larceny case occurred in Amherst County. (T. 96.) The testimony of the complaining witness supported the ruling of the Lynchburg Circuit Court. Donetta Jenkins, the victim, said that she changed her mind about going to Baltimore when she got into Amherst County, Madison Heights. (T. 53.)

The Supreme Court of the United States has held that double jeopardy does not extend to an offense beyond the jurisdiction of the court in which the accused is tried. *United States*v. Ball, 163 U.S. 662, 669, 41 L. Ed. 300, 16 S. Ct. 1192 (1896). In *Curtis*v. *Commonwealth,*13 Va. App. 622, 628, 414 S.E.2d 421 (1992), the Supreme Court of Virginia held that the jurisdictional *449exception is a limitation of the double jeopardy principal, citing *United States*v. *Ball*as the controlling authority. See also *Vanegas*v. *Commonwealth,*17 Va. App. 451, 454, 438 S.E.2d 289 (1993).

I direct that the Commonwealth’s Attorney prepare an Order which implements the decision set forth in this letter which overrules the motion to dismiss on the grounds of double jeopardy.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 1169

_____________________________
M YRICK B ROCK H AMILTON , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County

. David Rimmer , Judge

. March 25, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. R OBERTS , R AY , and J AY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallah assee , for Appellee.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-50924

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ROBERTO AVILA-RAMIREZ,

also known as Jesus Hernandez-Martinez,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-02-CR-771-ALL-DB 

--------------------

February 20, 2003

Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Roberto Avila-Ramirez appeals the sentence imposed following

his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States

after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Avila-Ramirez contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior

conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element

of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have

been alleged in his indictment. Avila-Ramirez maintains that he
No. 02-50924

-2-

pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry

under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds

the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed

for that offense.

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Avila-Ramirez acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
| (logo)  WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**

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

 

 

Re: AnnualStatement of Compliance for Morgan Stanley Bank of America Merrill Lynch Trust2013-C12, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2013-C12

 

Perthe Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of October 1, 2013 (the"Agreement"), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of WellsFargo 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 itsperformance 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 hasfulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respectsthroughout the Reporting Period.

 

February27, 2017

 

 

/s/Brian Smith

BRIANSMITH

VicePresident

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll go far |
|------------------------|------------------------------------|
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 1742** 

JOHN R. UNTHANK; JACKIE D. UNTHANK , Plaintiffs

– Appellants ,

v. FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.; SEQUOIA MORTGAGE TRUST, 2010 H1 , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. ( 1:13

- cv - 00100

- JFM )

Submitted : August 29, 2013 Decided: September 3, 2013

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. John R. Unthank, Jackie D. Unthank, Appellants Pro Se. Glenn Cline, Robert A. Scott, BALLARD SPAHR, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: John and Jackie Unthank appeal the district court’s judgment dismissing their diversity action for failure to state a claim and denying their motion to reinstate their case and amend their complaint. On appeal, the Unthanks do not challenge the district court’s conclusion that their complaint was properly dismissed for failure to state a claim bec au se their claims rested on an invalid legal theory. S ee Edwards v. City of Goldsboro , 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) (concluding that issues not raised in opening brief are deemed waived) ; 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (limiting appellate review to issues raised in informal brief)

. Rather, the Unthanks argue onl y that the district court erred in dismissing their pro se complaint without advising them of their right to amend the complaint or providing them an opportunity to do so. We have reviewed the record in this case and find no reversible error on th e ground s asserted

. See Arnett v. Webster , 658 F.3d 742, 756

- 57 (7th Cir. 2011) (addressing court’s obligation to advise pro se plaintiff regarding amendment of complaint ); Francis v. Giacomelli , 588 F.3d 186, 197 (4th Cir. 2009) (finding no abuse of discretion i n denial of request to amend when litigants provided no proposed amendment); Laber v. Harvey , 438 F.3d 404, 428 (4th Cir. 2006) (finding no abuse of discretion in denial of motion to amend when amendment would be futile). Accordingly, we affirm the3 distri ct court’s judgment. 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.

AFFIRMED
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ronnie Raynard BROOKS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-40479.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 4, 2008.

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

Vincent A. Gonzalez, Corpus Christi, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

*668PER CURIAM: *

Ronnie Raynard Brooks was convicted of two charges of aiding and abetting transportation of an alien within the United States and was sentenced to serve 19 months in prison. Brooks appeals his sentence. He argues that the district court clearly erred by determining that his offenses were committed for profit and by sentencing him in accordance with this determination. Our review of the record both refutes Brooks’s assertions concerning the propriety of the district ■ court’s findings and shows that he was ineligible for the requested adjustment under the plain language of the pertinent Guideline. *See*U.S.S.G. § 2Ll.l(b)(l); *United States v. Villanueva,*408 F.Sd 193, 203 (5th Cir.2005). Brooks has failed to show error in connection with his sentence. Consequently, 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.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION FOR R EHEARING

Appellate case name: Olive Jean Lawrence v. Cheryl Page

Appellate case number: 01

- 16

- 00133

- CV

Trial court case number: 445,145

Trial court: Probate Court No 1 of Harris County

Date motion filed: October 28, 2016

Party filing motion: Appellant

It is ordered that the motion for rehearing is DENIED GRANTED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Sherry Radack

Acting individually Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Chief Justice Radack and Justices H i gley and H u ddle

Date: December 6 , 2016
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-19-00244-CR 

JOHN HERNANDEZ, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

 

On Appeal from the 47th District Court 

Potter County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 75,026-A-CR, Honorable Dan L. Schaap, Presiding 

 

October 29, 2019 

 

ORDER OF ABATEMENT AND REMAND 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and PIRTLE and PARKER, JJ. 

Appellant John Hernandez appeals his conviction for driving while intoxicated, 

enhanced,1 and sentence to sixty years’ confinement. The appellate record was originally 

due August 19, 2019. The clerk’s record was filed by this deadline, but the reporter’s 

record was not. We subsequently granted the reporter, Ms. Dina Wall, two extensions to 

file the reporter’s record. By letter of September 23, 2019, we admonished Ms. Wall that 

1 TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 49.04, 49.09(b) (West Supp. 2018).
2

failure to file the reporter’s record by October 18 could result in the appeal being abated 

and the cause remanded to the trial court for further proceedings without further notice. 

The reporter’s record has not been filed to date, and Ms. Wall has not provided the Court 

with any explanation for her failure to file the record.

Accordingly, we abate the appeal and remand the cause to the trial court for further 

proceedings. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(c), 37.3(a)(2). On remand, the trial court shall 

determine the following:

1. what tasks remain to complete the filing of the reporter’s record;

2. why Ms. Wall has not completed the necessary tasks;

3. what amount of time is reasonably necessary for the completion of those 

tasks; and

4. whether Ms. Wall can complete the tasks within the time the trial court finds 

reasonable.

Should the trial court determine that Ms. Wall will require more than thirty days to 

complete, certify, and file the reporter’s record, it shall arrange for a substitute reporter to 

do so. The trial court is directed to enter such orders necessary to address the 

aforementioned questions. So too shall it include its findings on those matters in a

supplemental clerk’s record and cause that record to be filed with this Court by December 

2, 2019.

It is so ordered.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       2,892,389
<SECURITIES>                                   650,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  222,308
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,024,011
<PP&E>                                       1,382,088
<DEPRECIATION>                               (508,484)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,945,664
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,121,924
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,827
<OTHER-SE>                                  15,425,139
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,945,664
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               728,281
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   37,329     
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,754,822        
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              88,419
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,848,189)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (5,848,189)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,848,189)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.64)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.64)
        

</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JIAYOU SUN,

Petitioner,

 v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 14-73519

Agency No. A087-604-898

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 4, 2020** 

San Francisco, California

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Jiayou Sun, a citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of

Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”)

decision denying his application for asylum, withholding or removal, and

FILED

AUG 10 2020

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).
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review. 

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility finding, which

was based on inconsistencies in Sun’s testimony regarding when his wife was

forced to have an intrauterine device placed by the Chinese government. See

Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039–40 (9th Cir. 2014); see also Chawla v.

Holder, 599 F.3d 998, 1001 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Our review is limited to the BIA’s

decision concerning the adverse credibility finding.”). This inconsistency went to

the heart of Sun’s claim that he suffered persecution on account of his violation of

China’s one child policy, and thus the IJ and Board permissibly found Sun not

credible. See Li v. Holder, 738 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 2003). Therefore, the

denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal was supported by

substantial evidence. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1047–48.

Because Sun offered no other evidence in support of his claim for protection

under the CAT apart from the testimony that the agency found not credible, the

Board properly affirmed the IJ’s denial on that claim as well. See id. at 1049.

PETITION DENIED.

2