alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jose Luis MURILLO-PEREZ, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 09-50567.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Nov. 2, 2010.

Filed Dec. 6, 2010.

*176Rebecca Suzanne Kanter, Southern District of California, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Anthony E. Colombo, Jr., Esquire, Law Offices of Anthony E. Colombo, Jr., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: SCHROEDER and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges, and JARVEY, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Murillo-Perez appeals his jury conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He also challenges his sentence.

The district court did not err in admitting evidence that Murillo-Perez was permanently barred from reentering the United States. The custodian of the documentary evidence was qualified to authenticate it, and, at the request of the petitioner, the description of the underlying conviction was deleted. The evidence did not remove from the jury’s consideration the issue of whether he had ever applied for reentry, and indeed there was no objection on that ground.

The admission of the certificate of non-existence of record (“CNR”) was harmless error because even without the CNR, there was overwhelming evidence that Murillo-Perez did not get permission to reenter the United States. There was testimony from . the custodian that she could not find an 1-212 document or filing fee in Murillo-Perez’s A-file or C.L.A.I.M.S. database to indicate that Murillo-Perez had applied to reenter. *See United States v. Orozco-Acosta,*607 F.3d 1156, 1162 (9th Cir.2010).

The evidence supporting a jury finding of alienage was sufficient. In addition to the prior deportation order, the government introduced the defendant’s own sworn statement in the 1994 deportation hearing that he was an alien. Additionally, there was evidence that he had been subsequently deported twice to Mexico, in July 1998 and June 2002.

With respect to sentencing, the district court did take into account the age of the convictions and expressly determined that the 84 months’ sentence was fair and just, in light of the old age of the prior *177convictions and the continued criminal activity. The case, therefore, is unlike *United States v. Amezcua-Vasquez, 567*F.3d 1050 (9th Cir.2009), where the staleness of the prior conviction was not considered.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov","title":"Office of Human Resources - Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"CxBHKlif1F\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/aboutus\/agency-departments\/human-resources\/\">Office of Human Resources<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/aboutus\/agency-departments\/human-resources\/embed\/#?secret=CxBHKlif1F\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Office of Human Resources” — Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service\" data-secret=\"CxBHKlif1F\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/* <![CDATA[ *\/\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n\/* ]]> *\/\n<\/script>\n"}
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE> 
<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM MUTUAL RISK
MANAGEMENT LTD.'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF MARCH 31,1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>   0000826918
<NAME>  MUTUAL RISK MANAGEMENT LTD.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           333,990
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                           0
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 333,990
<CASH>                                         115,480
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                             380,766
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                          25,151
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,732,278
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                455,462
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                            118,219
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                           44,070
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                123,801
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            2,952
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           186
<OTHER-SE>                                     213,804
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,732,278
<PREMIUMS>                                      17,952
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                              5,988
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                               (774)
<OTHER-INCOME>                                  24,021
<BENEFITS>                                       7,663
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                     10,605
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            15,958
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,961
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,276
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,685
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,644
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.54
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.53
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0                              
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 24.1POWER OF ATTORNEYWHEREAS, Associated Materials, LLC, a Delaware limited liability corporation (the “Company”),proposes to file with the Securities and Exchange Commission, under the provisions of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, an Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal yearended December 29, 2007; andWHEREAS, the undersigned is a Director;NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned hereby constitutes and appoints Cynthia L. Sobe as attorney for andin the name, place and stead of the undersigned, and in the capacity of the undersigned as aDirector, to execute and file such Form 10-K and any amendments or supplements thereto, herebygiving and granting to said attorney, full power and authority to do and perform each and every actand thing whatsoever requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully, to allintents and purposes, as the undersigned might or could do if personally present at the doingthereof, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorney may or shall lawfully do, or causeto be done, by virtue hereof.IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Power of Attorney this 14th day of March,2008.     By: /s/ Kevin M. Hayes         Kevin M. Hayes    Director       By: /s/ Ira D. Kleinman         Ira D. Kleinman    Director       By: /s/ Thomas Sullivan         Thomas Sullivan    Director       By: /s/ Dana R. Snyder         Dana R. Snyder    Director       By: /s/ Kevin C. Nickelberry         Kevin C. Nickelberry    Director       By: /s/ Dennis W. Vollmershausen         Dennis W. Vollmershausen    Director
<TABLE> <S> <C>

                                                                    





<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                           OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                             SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       104,115
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                828,470
<ALLOWANCES>                                 105,921
<INVENTORY>                                1,454,718
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           2,371,749
<PP&E>                                     1,029,812
<DEPRECIATION>                               967,991
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             2,587,510
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      3,568,645
<BONDS>                                      632,807
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                      57,667
<OTHER-SE>                                (1,671,609)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               2,587,510
<SALES>                                    6,552,332
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           6,552,332
<CGS>                                      4,553,392
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             11,402,391
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             220,691
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           222,647
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (5,070,750)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (5,070,750)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                              (5,070,750)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.91)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.91)
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DAVID ARLINGTON ZILLHART,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 600 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 13th day of December, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of

Appeal is DENIED

.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6120

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ELWOOD JOSEPH CEPHUS, a/k/a Flocko,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. James C. Dever, 

III, Chief District Judge. (2:11-cr-00027-D-1; 2:13-cv-00006-D)

Submitted: August 21, 2014 Decided: August 25, 2014

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Elwood Joseph Cephus, Appellant Pro Se. Timothy Severo, Seth 

Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, 

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Elwood Joseph Cephus seeks to appeal the district 

court’s orders dismissing in part his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 

motion and adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to

deny relief on the remainder of the motion. These orders are

not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Cephus has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ ENOVSYS LLC, Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.
AT&T MOBILITY LLC, A T&T MOBILITY II LLC, Defendants

- Cross

- Appellants

______________________

2016

- 1691, 2016

- 1767

______________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Central District of California in No. 2:11

- cv

- 05210 -SS, Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Seg al.

______________________
JUDGMENT

______________________
B RUCE G. C HAPMAN , Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, Los Angeles, CA, argued for plaintiff

appellant.

M ICHAEL H AWES , Baker Botts, LLP, Houston, TX, a rgued for defendants

- cross

- appellants. Also represented by B RYANT C. B OREN , J R ., E LIOT D AMON W ILLIAMS , Palo Alto, CA; T IMOTHY S. D URST , B RIAN D OUGLAS J OHNSTON , Da llas, TX.

______________________T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (D YK , O’M ALLEY , and W ALLACH , Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

March 10, 2017 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Date Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court
#### Isaac GASTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ben CURRY, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 07-55983.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Nov. 4, 2010.

Filed Dec. 15, 2010.

Issac Gaston, Correctional Training Facility South Facility, Soledad, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Douglas L. Wilson, Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: RAWLINSON and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and JONES, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable Robert Clive Jones, U.S. District Judge for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner Isaac Gaston (Gaston) challenges the district court’s denial of his federal habeas petition premised on the prosecutor’s use of peremptory challenges to exclude African-American jurors from Gaston’s state court trial.

The California Court of Appeal’s determination that the prosecutor was willing to accept an African-American juror, and used peremptory challenges to exclude two *145African-American prospective jurors based on one prospective juror’s demeanor and the other prospective juror’s responses to questions regarding his views of law enforcement was not unreasonable. *See Cook v. LaMarque,*598 F.3d 810, 816 (9th Cir.2010) (“[W]e must defer to the [California Court of Appeal’s] conclusion that there was no discrimination unless that finding was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”) (citation, footnote reference, and internal quotation marks omitted); *see also Kesser v. Cambra,*465 F.3d 351, 359 (9th Cir.2006) (“To accept a prosecutor’s stated nonracial reasons, the court need not agree with them. The question is not whether the stated reason represents a sound strategic judgment, but whether counsel’s race-neutral explanation for a peremptory challenge should be believed.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

Gaston’s proffered comparative juror analysis does not establish that the California Court of Appeal’s decision was unreasonable. *See Cook,*593 F.3d at 817.

AFFIRMED.

**

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



(1)
    
    the Form 10-K 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 Form 10-K fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
 Dated: March 31, 2006
    
    By:/s/ Robert M. ZakRobert M. Zak, Senior Vice President andChief Operating Officer(chief executive officer)Dated: March 31, 2006
    
    By:/s/ Kenneth J. WilsonKenneth J. Wilson, Vice President & CFO(chief financial officer)
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

I, Marcel van Heesewijk, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of SourcingLing.net, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2004 fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of SourcingLing.net, Inc.





|Date: November 15, 2004 | /s/    Marcel van Heesewijk.
Marcel van Heesewijk.
Chairman, Chief Executive Officer
|----------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|-  12 -
|-------
|
1 The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri, sitting by designation.

2 The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 98-3650

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the District * of Minnesota. James Franklin Patten, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: March 12, 1999 Filed: May 13, 1999

___________ Before BEAM and HEANEY, Circuit Judges and FENNER, 1 District Judge.

___________ PER CURIAM. James Franklin Patten appeals the district court's 2 imposition of a twelve-month sentence under U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4 for violating a condition of his supervised release.-2-

Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the district court's ruling without further discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
**FEDERALMINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION**

 

SUNSHINE ACT NOTICE

 

BAC 6735-01

 

May 8, 2015

 

 

TIMEAND DATE:                10:00 a.m., Thursday, May 21, 2015

 

PLACE:                                  TheRichard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,Washington, DC 20004 (enter from    F Street entrance)

 

STATUS:                                Open

 

MATTERSTO BE 

CONSIDERED:                     TheCommission will hear oral argument in the matter *Secretary of Labor v. BlackBeauty Coal Company,*Docket No. LAKE 2009-570.**(Issues includewhether the safeguard notice in question as modified is valid.)

 

 

Any person attending this oral argument who requiresspecial accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign languageinterpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs.  Subject to29 C.F.R. § 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).

 

 

CONTACTPERSON 

FOR MORE INFO:                EmogeneJohnson (202) 434-9935 / (202) 708-9300 for TDD

                                                Relay/ 1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                __________________________________

                                                SarahL. Stewart

                                                DeputyGeneral Counsel
106 A.3d 1236

#### IN THE MATTER OF MICHAEL D. HALBFISH, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW (ATTORNEY NO. 011741997).

February 4, 2015.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 14-146 and DRB 14-170, recommending the disbarment of MICHAEL D. HALBFISH, of PHILLIPSBURG, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1997, and who has been suspended from the practice of law since October 18, 2013, *464for his unethical conduct in five matters, including violations of *RPC*1.1(a) (gross neglect), *RPC*1.1(b) (pattern of neglect), *RPC*1.3 (lack of diligence), *RPC*1.4(b) (failure to communicate with client), and *RPC*8.1(b) (failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities);

And the record in DRB 14-146 having been certified to the Board pursuant to *Rule*1:20—4(f) (default by respondent);

And MICHAEL D. HALBFISH having failed to appear on the Order directing him to show cause why he should not be disbarred or otherwise disciplined;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that MICHAEL D. HALBFISH be disbarred, effective immediately, and that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys;

ORDERED that MICHAEL D. HALBFISH be and hereby is permanently restrained and enjoined from practicing law; and it is further

ORDERED that all funds, if any, currently existing or hereinafter deposited in any New Jersey financial institution maintained by MICHAEL D. HALBFISH pursuant to *Rule*1:21-6 be restrained from disbursement except on application to this Court, for good cause shown, and shall be transferred by the financial institution to the Clerk of the Superior Court, who is directed to deposit the funds in the Superior Court Trust Fund pending the further Order of this Court; and it is further

ORDERED that MICHAEL D. HALBFISH, comply with *Rule*1:20-20 dealing with disbarred attorneys; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs and actual *465expenses incurred in the prosecution of this matter, as provided in *Rule*1:20-17.