alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Reuben Charles JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. W.T. DRAKE, City Police Sergeant; Chris Perkins, City Police Chief, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 14-6115.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 17, 2014.

Decided: April 22, 2014.

Reuben Charles Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Timothy Ross Spencer, Office of the City Attorney for the City of Roanoke, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Reuben Charles Jones appeals the magistrate judge’s * order granting Defendants’ summary judgment motion on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. *Jones v. Drake,*No. 7:12— cv-00514-RSB, 2014 WL 126995 (W.D.Va. Jan. 13, 2014). 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.*

*

 The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2012).
#### Maria Alice DA SILVA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-73221.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 20, 2007.*

Filed Feb. 27, 2007.

Maria Alice Da Silva, Las Vegas, NV, pro se.

Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Las Vegas, NV, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Terri J. Scadron, Esq., Greg D. Mack, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Maria Alice Da Silva, a native and citizen of Brazil, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming without opinion an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia and denying her motion to reconsider the IJ’s denial of her motion to reopen. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is conferred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, *see Lo v. Ashcroft,*341 F.3d 934, 937 (9th Cir. 2003), we grant in part and dismiss in part the petition for review, and remand for further proceedings.

The IJ abused his discretion in denying Da Silva’s motion to reopen based on Da Silva’s attorney acknowledged responsibility for Da Silva’s failure to appear at her hearing. We remand to the IJ for further proceedings consistent with this disposition.

*672We lack jurisdiction to consider Da Silva’s contention that the IJ erred in denying her motion to consolidate her case with her brother’s case because she did not raise this issue before the BIA. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (holding that exhaustion of an alleged procedural error is mandatory and jurisdictional).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; GRANTED in part; REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
EXHIBIT 32: Rule 13a-14(b) Certification

The undersigned officer certifies that this report fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and that the information contained in the report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of The Kingsley Coach, Inc.

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

February 14, 2005                   /s/ Ralph Dickenson
                                    ----------------------------------------
                                    Ralph Dickenson (Chief Executive Officer
                                     and Chief Financial Officer)
2010-0173.

#### In re Jefferson Cty. Sheriff v. Fraternal Order of Police, Ohio Labor Council, Inc.

Jefferson App. No. 09-JE-2, 2009-Ohio-6758. On motion for stay of judgment. Motion denied.

Moyer, C.J., and Lundberg Stratton and Lanzinger, JJ., dissent.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         394,811
<SECURITIES>                                 2,481,004
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,357
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,037,096
<PP&E>                                       1,496,340
<DEPRECIATION>                                 773,947
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,772,764
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          220,740
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                          7820
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,544,204
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,772,764
<SALES>                                          4,356
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                46,464
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               662,981
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (616,517)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (616,517)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (616,517)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.08)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Brunner
Companies Income Properties L.P. I 1997 First Quarter 10-QSB and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such 10-QSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000830737
<NAME> BRUNNER COMPANIES INCOME PROPERTIES L.P. I
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             318
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      182
<ALLOWANCES>                                        45
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          25,044
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,863
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  19,850
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                         18,628
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                         991
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    19,850
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   721
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   740
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 425
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (19)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.03)<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.5



                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement of
Mace Security International, Inc. on Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-31757) filed
on July 22, 1997; Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-87981) filed on September 28,
1999, amended on December 23, 1999; Form S-4 (Registration No. 333-89717) filed
on October 26, 1999, amended on December 21, 1999; Form S-8 (Registration No.
333-93311) filed December 21, 1999 of our report dated September 18, 1999, with
respect to the financial statements of Innovative Control Systems, Inc. included
in Mace Security International, Inc.'s Annual Report on Form 10-KSB filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about March 28, 2000.



                         /s/DANIEL P. IRWIN AND ASSOCIATES P.C.

Strafford-Wayne, Pennsylvania
March 24, 2000
Exhibit 4.24
English Translation
 NOTICE OF AMENDMENT OR CANCELLATION OF CONTRACTClient Name
    
    Acciona Energia
    
    Date of Execution
    
    November 9, 2006Contract Number
    
    YL-AE-1061109
    
    Total Volume
    
    14 mega watt out of 42 mega wattProduct Model &
Quantity
    
    YL170(23)P1335X990
YL180(23)P1335X990Unit Price
    
    3.776 USD/WP
    
    Total Price
    
    US$158,592,000.00Term of Payment
    
    20% pre-payment, 80% L/C-at-SightTime of Delivery
    
    7 mega watt lots per quarter in 2007, 7 mega watt lots per quarter in the first
2 quarters of 2008.
 Upon


consultation with the other party, terms of the Contract shall be modified as follow:1.
    
    The Unit Price under the Contract shall be changed as: NO CHANGE2.
    
    The Time of Delivery shall be changed as: NO CHANGE1) Change within current year o2) Change cross-year o3.
    
    Cancelation of he remaining volume in the Contract:Volume performed:
Volume remained:Reasons for changing or cancelling the Contract are as follow:Loss and damage imposed upon us due to the change or cancellation of the Contract:
Changing the total volume under the Contract.
Original total volume: 42 mega watt
New total volume: 42.087600 mega watt
Reasons for changing the Contract are the following:
In performing the 42 mega watt Contract, the last lot to be shipped was less than container load. As
consulting with the other party, the other party expected for a full container load for shipment. In
accordance with the other partys requirement, we shipped a 180 watt container which was in excess of
87,600 watt than the volume originally agreed in the Contract.
 Signature:
    
    Signature:
    
    Signature:/s/ Zelin Zhao
    
    /s/ Qian Zhang
/s/ Yan Ma
    
    /s/ Shuozhen LiDepartment Manager
    
    General Manager
(General Sales Company)
    
    COO
    
    General Manager
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 41 (Thursday, March 1, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12894-12895]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-4914]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 01-488, MM Docket No. 00-236, RM-10000]


Digital Television Broadcast Service; La Crosse, WI

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission, at the request of QueenB Television, LLC,

[[Page 12895]]

licensee of station WKBT-TV, substitutes DTV channel 41 for DTV channel 
53 at La Crosse, Wisconsin. See 65 FR 71291, November 30, 2000. DTV 
channel 41 can be allotted to La Crosse in compliance with the 
principle community coverage requirements of Section 73.625(a) at 
reference coordinates (44-05-28 N. and 91-20-16 W.) with a power of 
1000, HAAT of 446 meters and with a DTV service population of 649 
thousand.

DATES: Effective April 12, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam Blumenthal, Mass Media Bureau, 
(202) 418-1600.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Report and Order, MM Docket No. 00-236, adopted February 23, 2001, and 
released February 26, 2001. The full text of this Commission decision 
is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC Reference Center 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, DC. The 
complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the 
Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services, 
Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Television, Digital television broadcasting.
    Part 73 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended 
as follows:

PART 73--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for Part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, and 336.


Sec. 73.622  [Amended]

    2. Section 73.622(b), the Table of Digital Television Allotments 
under Wisconsin, is amended by removing DTV channel 53 and adding DTV 
channel 41 at La Crosse.

Federal Communications Commission.
Barbara A. Kreisman,
Chief, Video Services Division, Mass Media Bureau.
[FR Doc. 01-4914 Filed 2-28-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
2009-1311.

#### State v. McQueen.

Cuyahoga App. No. 92089, 2009-Ohio-2386.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2


                   ERESEARCHTECHNOLOGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                            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 eResearchTechnology, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Bruce
Johnson, Senior 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, to my knowledge, that:

     The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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





Dated:  November 3, 2005                                  Bruce Johnson
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Bruce Johnson,
                                                 Senior Vice President and Chief
                                                 Financial Officer


This certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed "filed" by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and shall not be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
whether made before or after the date of this Report, irrespective of any
general incorporation language contained in such filing.
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

This certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and accompanies the quarterly report
on Form 10-QSB (the "Form 10-QSB") for the period ended March 31, 2006 of Chase
Packaging Corporation (the "Company"). I, Allen McInnes, President and Principal
Executive Officer of the Company, certify that, to the best of my knowledge:

(1) The Form 10-QSB fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

                                   /s/ Allen McInnes
                                   ---------------------------------------
                                   Allen McInnes
                                   President & Principal Executive Officer
May 10, 2006


                                    Page 14
Exhibit 31.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, Mark L. Meriwether, certify that:  1.   I have reviewed this Quarterly Report (the Report) on Form 10-QSB of the small business issuer;  2.   Based on my knowledge, this Report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this Report;  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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this Report;  4.   The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the small business issuer and have:  a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this Report is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my 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 small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and  5.   The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer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 small business issuer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 small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.  Date:November 19, 2007By:/s/Mark L. MeriwetherMark L. Meriwether, President and Director
#### Heidi G. ALDANA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-74854.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 10, 2011.*

Filed Jan. 18, 2011.

Thomas J. Tarigo, Esquire, Law Offices of Thomas J. Tarigo, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.

Lauren Fascett, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, 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.

*167Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Heidi G. Aldana, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her 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). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA acted within its discretion in denying as untimely Aldana’s motion to reopen because the motion was filed more than eight years after the BIA’s final order of removal, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Aldana did not establish that she acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the time limitation, *see Iturribarria,*321 F.3d at 897. We therefore do not address the merits of the motion.

To the extent we have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority, the BIA acted within its broad discretion in declining to reopen under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

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