alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Stanley G. ROTHENBERG, Petitioner-Appellant v. Maureen CRUZ, Warden, FCI Seagoville, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 13-10651

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 12, 2014.

Stanley G. Rothenberg, Seagoville, TX, pro se.

Angie Lee Henson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Stanley G. Rothenberg, federal prisoner # 76042-004, appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition-challenging two prison disciplinary eonvic-*285tions on due process grounds. Regarding the first disciplinary conviction, Incident Report # 2213792, Rothenberg fails to address the district court’s conclusion that his claims are not cognizable because the claims concerned the conditions of his confinement rather than the duration of his confinement. Therefore, Rothenberg’s claims regarding the first disciplinary pro-ceéding are deemed abandoned. ' *See Hughes v. Johnson,*191 F.3d 607, 613 (5th Cir.1999).

With regard to the second disciplinary conviction, Incident Report # 2218281, Rothenberg fails to address the district court’s dismissal of his claim on the basis that temporary placement in administrative segregation does not implicate a liberty interest. Therefore, that issue is also deemed abandoned. *See id.*

Rothenberg argues that his due process rights were denied because there was insufficient evidence to support his disciplinary conviction for failure to obey an order. He contends that the evidence was insufficient because the correctional officer was not credible and because Rothenberg’s physical limitations excused him from cutting in line. There was at least some evidence upon which Rothenberg was convicted of the second disciplinary violation; thus, the evidence was sufficient to support the disciplinary conviction. *See Superintendent, Massachusetts Corr. Inst. v. Hill,*472 U.S. 445, 455-56, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985).

Because Rothenberg failed to set forth facts which would entitle him to relief, the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing. *See Ellis v. Lynaugh,*873 F.2d 830, 840 (5th Cir.1989).

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 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### YONGLIANG GE, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 10-60220

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 4, 2011.

A. Don Forester, Esq., Forester Law Firm, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.

Jeffrey Ronald Meyer, Esq., Tangerlia Cox, Ann M. Welhaf, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before WIENER, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Yongliang Ge, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, has filed a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA’s) dismissal of his appeal of the immigration judge’s (IJ’s) denial of his application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).

Ge argues that the BIA and IJ erred in denying his request for withholding of removal based on government persecution due to his political views. He does not argue that he was entitled to withholding of removal based on his religious beliefs or *930that he was entitled to relief under the CAT.

Ge has not shown that any past persecution was on account of his political views or that there was a clear probability that he would be persecuted on account of his political views upon his return to China. *See Roy v. Ashcroft,*389 F.3d 132,138 (5th Cir.2004). Accordingly, the evidence does not compel a conclusion contrary to that of the BIA and IJ. *See Zhu v. Gonzales,*493 F.3d 588, 594 (5th Cir.2007).

PETITION DENIED.

*

 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.
**FEDERALMINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION**

 

SUNSHINE ACT NOTICE

 

BAC 6735-01

 

January 27, 2015

 

 

TIMEAND DATE:                11:00 a.m., Thursday, February 5, 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 consider and act upon the following in open session: *MillBranch Coal Corp. v. Secretary of Labor,*Docket Nos. VA 2012-435-R et al.**(Issues include whether the Administrative Law Judge erred in upholding an imminentdanger order.)

 

 

 

 

Any person attending this meeting 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
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION

I, Ralph Larry Lyons, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Central Virginia Bankshares, Inc.;



2.

Based on my knowledge, this annual 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;



3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.

The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



(a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



---

(b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



Date:  March 31, 2005



/s/ Ralph Larry Lyons



Ralph Larry Lyons, President and Chief

Executive Officer
Exhibit
32





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 Cadus Corporation (the "Company") on Form
10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David Blitz, President
and Chief Executive 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 results of operations of the
      Company.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Cadus Corporation and will be retained by Cadus Corporation and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




/s/ David BlitzDavid
      BlitzPresident
      and Chief Executive Officer (ChiefExecutive
      Officer and Chief Financial Officer)March
      30, 2010





The
foregoing certification is furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
document.
#### Craig B. SCHNEIDER, Plaintiff-Appellant v. GULF INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 13-30846.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 5, 2014.

James Louis Arruebarrena, Esq., New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Angella Hebert Myers, Esq., Mark C. Carver, Esq., Myers Law Group, L.L.P., New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before BARKSDALE, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

AFFIRMED. *See*5th Cir. R. 47.6.

*

 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.
#### FENGSHAN AN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-70247.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 6, 2010.*

Filed Dec. 13, 2010.

*237Shun Chiang Chen, Law Offices of Shun C. Chen, Irvine, CA, for Petitioner.

OIL, Stuart Nickum, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: GOODWIN, RYMER, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Fengshan An, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence. *Li v.*Holder, 559 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir.2009). We grant the petition for review and remand.

An’s contention regarding translator errors fails because the proceedings were not “so fundamentally unfair that [she] was prevented from reasonably presenting [her case].” *Colmenar v. INS,*210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000) (citation omitted).

An testified she was persecuted and fears future persecution because she sheltered a North Korean refugee in her home. The IJ found An feared prosecution and not persecution and the BIA affirmed on that basis. The agency, however, did not have the benefit of our intervening decision in *Li,*559 F.3d at 1099 (substantial evidence did not support the BIA’s finding that the petitioner was a mere criminal subject to prosecution when the petitioner violated no Chinese law, but instead came to the aid of refugees in defiance of China’s unofficial policy of discouraging aid to refugees). Accordingly, we remand to the BIA for further proceedings. *See INS v. Ventura,*537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                   EXHIBIT 11

                 NANOPIERCE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                        COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE
                                   (Unaudited)


                                 Three Months Ended         Six Months Ended
                                     December 31,            December 31,
                             -------------------------  ------------------------
                                 2004         2003         2004         2003
                             ------------  -----------  -----------  -----------
<S>                          <C>           <C>          <C>          <C>
Net loss                     $  (217,568)    (302,032)    (423,862)    (756,898)
                             ============  ===========  ===========  ===========

Weighted average number of
  common shares outstanding   90,967,729   66,023,929   90,513,381   65,912,263

Common equivalent shares
  representing shares
  issuable upon exercise of
  outstanding options and
  warrants                             -            -            -            -
                             ------------  -----------  -----------  -----------

                              90,967,729   66,023,929   90,513,381   65,912,263
                             ============  ===========  ===========  ===========

Net loss per share,
  basic and diluted          $         *            *            *       ( 0.01)
                             ============  ===========  ===========  ===========
<FN>

* Less than ($0.01) per share.
</TABLE>


Stock  options  and  warrants  are  not considered in the calculations for those
periods with net losses as the impact of the potential common shares (76,181,877
at  December  31,  2004  and 14,695,210 shares at December 31, 2003) would be to
decrease  net  loss  per  share.


<PAGE>
OMB No. 1545-0062 Foreign Moving Expenses Form 3903-F

© Attach to Form 1040.

Department of the Treasury

Internal Revenue Service

Attachment

© See separate instructions. Sequence No. 63

Name(s) shown on Form 1040 Your social security number

1 City and country in which your old workplace was located ©

2 City and country in which your new workplace is located ©

Moving Expenses

Section A—Transportation of Household Goods

3 Transportation and storage for household goods and personal effects 3

Section B—Expenses of Moving From Old To New Home

4 Travel and lodging not including meals 4

5 Total meals 5

6 Multiply line 5 by 80% (.80) 6

7 Add lines 4 and 6 7

Section C—Pre-move Househunting Expenses and Temporary Quarters

(for any 90 days in a row after getting your job)

8 Pre-move travel and lodging not including meals 8

9 Temporary quarters expenses not including meals 9

10

Multiply line 10 by 80% (.80)

10

11

Add lines 8, 9, and 11

11

Section D—Qualified Real Estate Expenses

13 Expenses of (check one) a selling or exchanging your old home, or 13

b if renting, settling an unexpired lease.

14 Expenses of (check one) a buying your new home, or

b if renting, getting a new lease.

14

Dollar Limits and Moving Expense Deduction

15

16

Enter the smaller of:

Add lines 13, 14, and 15

17

18

Enter the smaller of:

17

Add lines 3, 7, and 17 18

19 Amount of expenses allocable to excluded income or housing costs (see instructions) 19

20 Subtract line 19 from line 18. Enter the result here and on Schedule A, line 18. This is your moving

expense deduction ©

For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see separate instructions. Form 3903-F (1993)

Total meal expenses for both pre-move househunting

and temporary quarters

12 12

15

16

● The amount on line 12, or

● $4,500 ($2,250 if married filing a separate return and at the end of

1993 you lived with your spouse who also started work in 1993).

● The amount on line 16, or

● $6,000 ($3,000 if married filing a separate return and at the end of 1993 you lived with

your spouse who also started work in 1993).

Note: Any payments your employer made for any part of your move (including the value of any services furnished in kind) should

be included on your W-2 form. Report that amount on Form 1040, line 7. See Reimbursements in the instructions.

20

Cat. No. 12493R

Part II

Part I

%

%

%

%

Caution: If you are a member of the armed forces, see the instructions before completing this form.

Note: If you and your spouse moved to separate new homes, see the instructions.

Printed on recycled paper

Also, see Time Test in the instructions.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Francis L. Simola, Chairman, President and CEO of PowerCold Corporation (the Company) do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



1.  This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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.



Date: August 15, 2005



/s/ Francis L. Simola

Francis L. Simola

Chairman, President and CEO



























































---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6895

WILLIE ALBERT JONES,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

WILLIAM STAFFORD, Major,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief

District Judge. (CA-98-45-1-2-MU)

Submitted: April 29, 1999 Decided: May 4, 1999

Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Willie Albert Jones, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Willie Albert Jones filed a notice of appeal after the

district court dismissed his petition for relief ostensibly filed

under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). However,

Jones’s informal brief states that he is attempting to appeal state

court judgments entered on July 14, 1997, and December 12, 1997.

Further, the record suggests that the proceeding Jones seeks to

challenge is ongoing in state court. Lower federal courts do not

have jurisdiction to review state court proceedings. See District

of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476 (1983).

Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of Jones’s petition. 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
Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATION**I, Richard F. Latour, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of MicroFinancial Incorporated; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.                                                                      /s/ Richard F. Latour   Richard F. Latour   President and Chief Executive Officer  Date: August 10, 2006
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

SUNSHINE ACT NOTICE

BAC 6735-01

July 12, 2019

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Friday, August 16, 2019

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 consider and act upon the following in open 

session: The Doe Run Company, Docket No. CENT 2015-318-RM.

(Issues include whether the Judge erred in concluding that the 

operator had violated standards based on strict liability and in 

failing to conduct separate S&S and negligence analyses.)

Any person attending this meeting 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.

PHONE NUMBER

FOR LISTENING TO 

MEETING: 1-(866) 867-4769

Passcode: 678-100

__________________________________

Sarah L. Stewart

Deputy General Counsel