alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Miguel CASTRO-GOMEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 09-70584.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

*716Filed March 22, 2011.

Joubin Nasseri, Nasseri Law Group, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.

Lori Warlick, Trial, Kelly J. Walls, Esquire, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *716*See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Miguel Castro-Gomez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, *Iturribarria, v. INS,*321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA acted within its discretion in denying as untimely Castro-Gomez’s motion to reopen because the motion was filed more than four years after the BIA’s final order of removal, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Castro-Gomez did not establish that he acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the time limitation, *see Iturribarria,*321 F.3d at 897; *see also Singh v. INS,*213 F.3d 1050, 1054 n. 8 (9th Cir.2000) (statements in motions are not evidence and are therefore not entitled to evidentiary weight).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-03-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-29-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-03-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                            7195
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    26594
<ALLOWANCES>                                      1084
<INVENTORY>                                      80989
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                122573
<PP&E>                                           48417
<DEPRECIATION>                                   21172
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  183646
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            28406
<BONDS>                                          76912
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          8413
<OTHER-SE>                                       46069
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    183646
<SALES>                                         253056
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                253056
<CGS>                                           132199
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   104503
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   391
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                9130
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   6833
<INCOME-TAX>                                      3226
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               3607
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 (5042)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1435)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.17)


</TABLE>
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of
Consolidated Water Co. Ltd. (the Company) on Form
10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Frederick W. McTaggart, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 result of operations of the Company.



Date: June 26, 2003


| |                               
| | ------------------------------
| | By: /s/ Frederick W. McTaggart
| |                               
| | Name: Frederick W. McTaggart  
| | Title: Chief Financial Officer
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3363 

To amend the Small Business Act to improve the preference for small business 

concerns owned and controlled by veterans. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 28, 2009 

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

Committee on Small Business 

A BILL 

To amend the Small Business Act to improve the preference 

for small business concerns owned and controlled by veterans. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PREFERENCE FOR SMALL BUSINESS CON4 CERNS OWNED AND CONTROLLED BY VET5 ERANS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Small Business Act (15 

7 U.S.C. 631 et seq.) is amended— 

8 (1) by redesignating section 44 as section 45; 

9 and 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 3363 IH

1 (2) by inserting after section 43 the following 

2 new section: 

3 ‘‘SEC. 44. PREFERENCE FOR SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS 

4 OWNED AND CONTROLLED BY VETERANS. 

5 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—In complying with a preference 

6 under this Act or any other provision of law for awarding 

7 a contract to a small business concern owned and con8 trolled by veterans or service-disabled veterans, the head 

9 of an executive agency may consider only a small business 

10 concern that is verified in the small business database 

11 maintained by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs under 

12 section 8127(f) of title 38, United States Code. In the case 

13 of any prime contract awarded by an executive agency 

14 under which the executive agency requires the contractor 

15 to comply with any such preference, the head of the execu16 tive agency shall require the prime contractor, in awarding 

17 subcontracts under the prime contract, to consider only 

18 small business concerns that are verified in such small 

19 business database. 

20 ‘‘(b) VERIFICATION.—For purposes of this section, a 

21 small business concern that is waiting for verification by 

22 the Secretary of Veterans Affairs under paragraph (4) of 

23 section 8127(f) of title 38, United States Code, shall be 

24 deemed to be verified in the small business database main25 tained by the Secretary under such section.’’. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS

3 

•HR 3363 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Section 44 of the Small 

2 Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631 et seq.), as added by sub3 section (a), shall take effect on the date that is 180 days 

4 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
1

The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa.

2

See Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); Dist. of Columbia Ct. of

Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983).

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-2966

___________

Andre Quinn Bell, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Constance L. Price, in her individual *

capacity only; Dr. John Campbell, in * [UNPUBLISHED]

his individual capacity only; Phil T. *

McCollum, in his individual capacity *

only, *

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: April 26, 2010

Filed: May 12, 2010

___________

Before LOKEN, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Andre Bell appeals the district court’s1

 order dismissing, as barred under the

Rooker-Feldman2

 doctrine, his complaint against personnel of the Iowa Board of
-2-

Dental Examiners (“the Board”). In his complaint, Bell asserted, inter alia, violations

of his constitutional rights (including his rights to due process and equal protection),

a civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act violation, and Fair Debt

Collection Practices Act violations, arising from the Board’s investigation and

discipline of Bell.

Following careful de novo review of the record, we find no basis for reversal.

See Skit Int’l, Ltd. v. DAC Techs. of Ark., Inc., 487 F.3d 1154, 1156 (8th Cir. 2007)

(de novo review of district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction;

“Rooker-Feldman doctrine prohibits lower federal courts from exercising appellate

review of state court judgments”); see also Dist. of Columbia Ct. of Appeals v.

Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 477 (“A judicial inquiry investigates, declares and enforces

liabilities as they stand on present or past facts and under laws supposed already to

exist. . . . [T]he nature of a proceeding depends not upon the character of the body but

upon the character of the proceedings.” (quotations omitted)). Accordingly, the

judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

____________________________
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronnie THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-2858.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted June 1, 2011.

Decided June 1, 2011.

Jonathan H. Koenig, Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Milwaukee, WI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Richard H. Parsons, Attorney, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Peoria, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge, and JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

Ronnie Thomas was part of a drug ring that transported marijuana from Phoenix, Arizona to Milwaukee, Wisconsin. He was charged with conspiracy to distribute marijuana, 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and because the amount was more than 100 kilograms he faced a minimum prison term of five years, *id.*§ 841(b)(l)(B)(vii). Thomas pleaded guilty and agreed to cooperate; the government moved for the court to impose a sentence below the statutory minimum based on his substantial assistance. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3553(e). The court granted the motion and sentenced Thomas to 30 months’ imprisonment, the sentence both parties recommended. Thomas filed a notice of appeal, but his appointed lawyer moves to withdraw on the ground that the case is frivolous. *See Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Thomas has not responded to counsel’s submission, which is facially adequate. *See*Cir. R. 51(b), *United States v. Schuh,*289 F.3d 968, 973-74 (7th Cir.2002). Counsel verified that Thomas does not want his guilty plea set aside and thus appropriately omits possible challenges to the plea colloquy or the voluntariness of the plea. *See United States v. Knox,*287 F.3d 667, 670-72 (7th Cir.2002).

Counsel reports that he searched the record but did not identify any possible challenge to the district court’s application of the sentencing guidelines. Counsel does question whether Thomas could contend that his prison sentence is unreasonably long, but we agree that it would be frivolous to make that argument. The term is below the guidelines range and thus is presumptively reasonable. *United States v. Liddell,*543 F.3d 877, 885 (7th Cir.2008); *United States v. George,*403 F.3d 470, 473 (7th Cir.2005). No circumstance warrants disregarding that presumption here.

The motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED.
[No. 42665-0-II.

Division Two.

November 13, 2012.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. David Wayne Vanderveer, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 10-1-04646-3, Elizabeth P. Martin, J., entered October 5,2011 *.Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per

Hunt, J.,

concurred in by Van Deren and Penoyar, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2



                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Susquehanna Media
Co. (the "Company") for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John L.
Finlayson, Vice President and 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, as amended; and

     (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

/s/ John L. Finlayson
---------------------
John L. Finlayson
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
August 12, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Susquehanna Media Co. and will be retained by Susquehanna Media Co.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
November 04,2015 CLERK,ABEL ACOSTA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS P.O.BOX 12308 CAPITOL STATION AUSTIN,TEXAS 78711 

### RECEIVEDIN 

## COURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALS 

## KQV102015 

# Ab9lAcoeta,Cterk

RE:Request for copy of 

### Memorandum Opinion/Petition for Discretionary Review,from Maurice Dancy,case number in the trial court.20,299-99th District Court of Lubbock County,Texas

Dear Clerk:



### Please send me the decision and all information involving the trial court case number.20,299,from the 99th District Court of 

### Lubbock County,Texas,Maurice Dancyv.State,from a judgment entere 

### ed in 1980,and this court's(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas) decision of his Petition for Discretionary Review.



### Thank you in advance for your immediate response to the above requested information. Respectfully requested, 

# rr)pya&ie£"Daaio.^h\(JcMp MR.MAURICE DANCY#316646 Coffield Unit 2661 FM 2094 

### Tennessee Colony,Tx.75884
Exhibit 24

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY


     The  undersigned,  a member  of the  Board of  Managers  or an  officer  of
MIDAMERICAN  ENERGY  COMPANY,  an  Iowa  corporation  (the  "Company"),   hereby
constitutes  and appoints  Douglas L.  Anderson and Paul J. Leighton and each of
them, as his/her true and lawful  attorney-in-fact and agent, with full power of
substitution  and  resubstitution,  for  and in  his/her  stead,  in any and all
capacities,  to sign on his/her behalf the Company's Form 10-K Annual Report for
the fiscal year ending  December 31, 2001 and to execute any amendments  thereto
and to file the same,  with all  exhibits  thereto,  and all other  documents in
connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission and applicable
stock  exchanges,  with the full power and  authority to do and perform each and
every act and thing necessary or advisable to all intents and purposes as he/she
might or could do in  person,  hereby  ratifying  and  confirming  all that said
attorney-in-fact  and agent, or his/her substitute or substitutes,  may lawfully
do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

Executed as of March 26, 2002.

/s/ David L. Sokol                                /s/ Gregory E. Abel
----------------------                            ------------------------
DAVID L. SOKOL                                    GREGORY E. ABEL


/s/ Patrick J. Goodman                            /s/ Douglas L. Anderson
----------------------                            ------------------------
PATRICK J. GOODMAN                                DOUGLAS L. ANDERSON
exv10w2



 





EXHIBIT 10.2




FIRST AMENDMENT TO

CASTLEWOOD HOLDINGS LIMITED

2006 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN




     WHEREAS, Castlewood Holdings Limited established the Castlewood Holdings Limited 2006 Equity
Incentive Plan (the “Plan”); and



     WHEREAS, the name of Castlewood Holdings Limited has been changed to Enstar Group Limited; and




     WHEREAS, it is desired to amend the Plan to reflect the change in name of the Company and to
change the name of the Plan accordingly.



     NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended, effective March 30, 2007, as follows:



     1. Section 2(j) is hereby amended to read as follows:




     (j) “COMPANY” shall mean Enstar Group Limited, a Bermuda corporation.



     2. Section 2(y) is hereby amended to read as follows:




     (y) “PLAN” shall mean the Enstar Group Limited 2006 Equity Incentive Plan as set
forth herein and as amended from time to time.



     3. Enstar Group Limited is hereby substituted for Castlewood Holdings Limited in each
other place it appears in the Plan.
EXHIBIT
32.1









CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
connection with the quarterly report of Greystone Logistics, Inc. (the
“Company”), on Form 10-Q for the period ending November 30, 2009, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Warren F. Kruger, President, Chief Executive Officer and principal 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.




January
      19, 2010
                
                /s/ Warren
      F. KrugerWarren
      F. KrugerPresident,
      Chief Executive Officer andprincipal
      financial officer







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.





The
foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission as an exhibit to the Report and shall not be considered filed as part
of the Report.
----

EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of SE Global Equities Corp. (the"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, TimLeong, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

- The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)  of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
- The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the  Partnership.

 

| Date: May 16, 2005 | /s/ Tim Leong      _______________________      Tim Leong, Chief Financial Officer |
|--------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6934

JAMES THEODORE ROSS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RICHARD BAKER, Superintendent; TAMMY HALL,

Classification Counselor,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA99-1690-DKC)

Submitted: November 18, 1999 Decided: November 23, 1999

Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Theodore Ross, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

James Theodore Ross appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of

the district court. See Ross v. Baker, No. CA-99-1690-DKC (D. Md.

June 30, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3313 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3313

To modify and waive certain requirements under title 23, United States 
 Code, to assist States with a high unemployment rate in carrying out 
   Federal-aid highway construction projects, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 23, 2009

   Mr. Schauer (for himself, Mr. Levin, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Peters, Ms. 
  Kilpatrick of Michigan, Mr. Kildee, and Mr. Conyers) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation 
                           and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To modify and waive certain requirements under title 23, United States 
 Code, to assist States with a high unemployment rate in carrying out 
   Federal-aid highway construction projects, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. FEDERAL SHARE PAYABLE.

    (a) Interstate System Projects.--With respect to an eligible State 
during fiscal years 2011 and 2012, section 120(a) of title 23, United 
States Code, shall be applied by substituting ``95 percent'' for ``90 
percent''.
    (b) Other Projects.--With respect to an eligible State during 
fiscal years 2011 and 2012, sections 120(b)(1) and 120(b)(2) of title 
23, United States Code, shall be applied by substituting ``85 percent'' 
for ``80 percent''.

SEC. 2. CREDIT FOR NON-FEDERAL SHARE.

    (a) In General.--With respect to an eligible State during fiscal 
years 2011 and 2012, the requirement under section 120(j)(1)(A) that 
toll revenues, to be eligible for use as a credit, be generated and 
used by public, quasi-public, and private agencies to build, improve, 
or maintain highways, bridges, or tunnels that serve the public purpose 
of interstate commerce shall not apply.
    (b) Maintenance of Effort.--With respect to an eligible State 
during fiscal years 2011 and 2012, requirements under section 
120(j)(2), United States Code, shall not apply.
    (c) Use of Tolls Previously Not Eligible.--With respect to an 
eligible State, tolls generated during fiscal years 2005 through 2010 
and not eligible as a credit under section 120(j) of title 23, United 
States Code, during such fiscal years due to a requirement under such 
section shall be eligible for use as a credit under such section during 
fiscal year 2011 or fiscal year 2012.

SEC. 3. ELIGIBLE STATE DEFINED.

    In this Act, the term ``eligible State'' means a State with an 
unemployment rate, as determined by the Secretary of Transportation, 
equal to or exceeding 11 percent at any time during fiscal years 2009 
and 2010.
                                 <all>
```