alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JAMAAL HUSEEN ALIYYI, 

Petitioner,

 v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 19-71826

Agency No. A215-815-491

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted October 21, 2020 

San Francisco, California

Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

Jamaal Aliyyi, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of

the denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection

under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) by the Board of Immigration

FILED

OCT 29 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Appeals (“BIA”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the

petition for review.

The immigration judge (“IJ”) found Aliyyi not credible, and the BIA

concluded that the IJ’s finding was not clearly erroneous. Substantial evidence

supports the adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies in Aliyyi’s

testimony about his passport and omissions about the harm suffered by his brothers

and father.1 See Lizhi Qiu, 944 F.3d at 842. The record supports the cited

inconsistencies and omissions. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1048 (9th

Cir. 2010) (“In the totality of circumstances it was a reasonable adverse credibility

determination, grounded in the record and based on real problems with

[petitioner’s] testimony, not mere trivialities.”). Aliyyi failed to adequately explain

the inconsistencies and omissions, and the evidence Aliyyi relies upon to support

his claim does not compel us to a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d

1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). 

 Thus, absent credible testimony, the BIA properly denied Aliyyi’s claims

for asylum and withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153,

1

 We need not address Aliyyi’s arguments regarding the other cited reasons

for the adverse credibility finding, because “[w]e must uphold an adverse

credibility determination ‘so long as even one basis is supported by substantial

evidence.’” Lizhi Qiu v. Barr, 944 F.3d 837, 842 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting Rizk v.

Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2011)).

2
1156 (9th Cir. 2003). The BIA also properly denied Aliyyi’s claim for CAT relief,

because it was based on the same testimony found not credible, and he does not

point to any other evidence in the record which would compel a conclusion that he

would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Ethiopian

government. See id. at 1156-57.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3
Editorial Note on Part 240
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 240 appear at 57 FR 36501, Aug. 13, 1992, and 57 FR 47409, Oct. 16, 1992.

§ 240.3a12-6 Definition of “common trust fund” as used in section 3(a)(12) of the Act. The term *common trust fund* as used in section 3(a)(12) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(12)) shall include a common trust fund which is maintained by a bank which is a member of an affiliated group, as defined in section 1504(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (26 U.S.C. 1504(a)), and which is maintained exclusively for the collective investment and reinvestment of monies contributed thereto by one or more bank members of such affiliated group in the capacity of trustee, executor, administrator, or guardian; *Provided,* That: ( a ) The common trust fund is operated in compliance with the same state and federal regulatory requirements as would apply if the bank maintaining such fund and any other contributing banks were the same entity; and
( b ) The rights of persons for whose benefit a contributing bank acts as trustee, executor, administrator, or guardian would not be diminished by reason of the maintenance of such common trust fund by another bank member of the affiliated group.
(15 U.S.C. 78c(b))
[43 FR 2392, Jan. 17, 1978]
#### § 20.8 Effect on other benefits.

Payment to a former spouse under this part shall not impair, reduce, or otherwise affect benefits paid under the Act to the principal or other persons.
Exhibit 24 - Powers of Attorney
                         -------------------------------




                                POWER OF ATTORNEY


         KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that each of the undersigned does
hereby appoint and constitute James R. Joyce, Benjamin W. Heath and Timothy L.
Largay and each of them as his agent and attorney-in-fact to execute in his
name, place and stead (whether on behalf of the undersigned individually or as
an officer or director of Coastal Caribbean Oils & Minerals Ltd. or otherwise)
the Registration Statement on Form S-1 of Coastal Caribbean Oils & Minerals Ltd.
respecting shares of common stock of Coastal Caribbean Oils & Minerals Ltd. to
be offered to the stockholders thereof, and any and all amendments thereto and
to file such Form S-1 and any such amendment thereto with the Securities and
Exchange Commission. Each of the said attorneys shall have the power to act
hereunder with or without the other.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this instrument this
9th day of January 2002.



By:  /s/ Graham B. Collis                      By:  /s/ Nicholas B. Dill
     --------------------                           --------------------
Name:  Graham B. Collis                        Name:  Nicholas B. Dill



By:   /s/Benjamin W. Heath                     By: /s/ John D. Monroe
      ---------------------                        ------------------
Name:  Benjamin W. Heath                       Name:  John D. Monroe



By:  /s/ Timothy L. Largay                     By:  /s/ Philip W. Ware
     ----------------------                         ------------------
Name:  Timothy L. Largay                       Name:  Philip W. Ware
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Hearst Corporation, Appellant, against Harry B. Chambers et al., Constituting the Tax Commission of the City of New York, Respondents. [732-742 Second Ave., Borough of Manhattan.] (Proceeding No. 1.) The People of the State of New York ex rel. Hearst Corporation, Appellant, against Harry B. Chambers et al., Constituting the Tax Commission of the City of New York, Respondents. [732-742 Second Ave., Borough of Manhattan.] (Proceeding No. 2.)

— Orders unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondents. No opinion. Present — -Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Callahan and Bergan, JJ.
#### § 1508.510 Who maintains the EPLS?

In accordance with the OMB guidelines, the General Services Administration (GSA) maintains the *EPLS.* When a Federal agency takes an action to exclude a person under the nonprocurement or procurement debarment and suspension system, the agency enters the information about the excluded person into the *EPLS.*
§ 151.11 Notification of ownership, maintenance or use of vessel and/or aircraft; evidence of insurance. ( a ) Each person subject to the Act and each mission must notify the Department of State in writing of the ownership, maintenance or other regular use of a vessel or aircraft in the United States by such mission or person.
( b ) Notices under paragraph (a) of this section shall identify the vessel and/or aircraft with specificity, including model and manufacturer's name, and serial and registration numbers. Each notification shall be accompanied by a copy of the insurance policy or policies issued in respect of the vessel and/or aircraft. Such policy or policies need not be issued by the insurer providing liability insurance for motor vehicles.
( c ) With regard to senior United Nations officials, missions to the United Nations and members of such missions as have diplomatic status and their families, notices and evidence of insurance under this section shall be delivered to the counselor for Host Country Affairs of the United States Mission to the United Nations. All other notices under this section shall be delivered to the Chief of Protocol, Department of State.
### §297h. Repealed. Pub. L. 99–92, §9(a)(1), Aug. 16, 1985, 99 Stat. 400

Section, act July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title VIII, §841, formerly §829, as added Aug. 16, 1968, Pub. L. 90–490, title II, §222(h), 82 Stat. 785; renumbered §841 and amended July 29, 1975, Pub. L. 94–63, title IX, §941(i)(1), (6), 89 Stat. 365, 366, related to transfers to the scholarship program.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Oct. 1, 1985, see section 10(a) of Pub. L. 99–92, set out as an Effective Date of 1985 Amendment note under section 297a of this title.
#### In the Matter of Buffalo Creek Railroad Company, Respondent, against City of Buffalo, Appellant.

All concur. (The portion of the order appealed from confirms the report of the referee and cancels an assessment on property for repaving of a street in the city of Buffalo.) Present— Taylor, P. J., MeCurn, Love, Kimball and Piper, JJ. [See *post,*p. 1019.]
#### Barbara Smith, an Infant, by Bessie Smith, Her Guardian ad Litem, et al., Appellants, v. Phyllis K. Moser et al., Respondents.

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs of this appeal to .any party. (Appeal from order of Allegany Special Term denying the motion of plaintiffs to strike out the answer of the defendants and to grant summary judgment to the plaintiffs.) Present — Williams, P. J., Goldman, Halpern, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
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 of Internet Infinity, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”), I, George P. Morris, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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)           Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:  August
17, 2011


/s/ George MorrisGeorge MorrisChief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Internet Infinity, Inc. and will be retained by Internet Infinity, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
§ 18.11 Answer. ( a ) *Filing.* The respondent's answer shall be filed in writing within the time specified in the complaint or notice of institution of the proceeding, unless on application the time is extended by the Director General. The answer shall be filed in duplicate with the Director General.
( b ) *Contents.* The answer shall contain a statement of facts which constitute the grounds of defense, and it shall specifically admit or deny each allegation set forth in the complaint. The respondent may also state affirmatively special matters of defense.
( c ) *Failure to deny or answer allegations in the complaint.* Every allegation in the complaint which is not denied in the answer shall be deemed to be admitted and may be considered as proved. Failure to file an answer within the time prescribed in the notice to the respondent, except as the time for answer is extended by the Director General shall constitute a waiver of hearing, and the Director General may make his/her decision by default without a hearing or further procedure.
### §2297g–3. Employee provisions

All laborers and mechanics employed by contractors or subcontractors in the performance of decontamination or decommissioning of uranium enrichment facilities of the Department shall be paid wages at rates not less than those prevailing on projects of a similar character in the locality as determined by the Secretary of Labor in accordance with sections 3141–3144, 3146, and 3147 of title 40. The Secretary of Labor shall have, with respect to the labor standards specified in this section, the authority and functions set forth in Reorganization Plan Numbered 14 of 1950 (15 F.R. 3176, 64 Stat. 1267) and section 3145 of title 40. This section may not be construed to require the contracting out of activities associated with the decontamination or decommissioning of uranium enrichment facilities.

(Aug. 1, 1946, ch. 724, title II, §1804, as added Pub. L. 102–486, title XI, §1101, Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 2955.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Reorganization Plan Numbered 14 of 1950, referred to in text, is set out in the Appendix to Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.

#### Codification

In text, "sections 3141–3144, 3146, and 3147 of title 40" substituted for "the Act of March 3, 1931 (known as the Davis-Bacon Act) (40 U.S.C. 276a et seq.)" and "section 3145 of title 40" substituted for "the Act of June 13, 1934 (40 U.S.C. 276c)", on authority of Pub. L. 107–217, §5(c), Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1303, the first section of which enacted Title 40, Public Buildings, Property, and Works.
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Election Commission

# AGENCY:

Federal Election Commission

# DATE & TIME:

*Tuesday, December 14, 2004 at 10 a.m.*

# PLACE:

999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC.

# STATUS:

This meeting will be closed to the public.

# ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED:

Compliance matters pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g.

Audits conducted pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g, section 438(b), and Title 26, U.S.C.

Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or arbitration.

Internal personnel rules and procedures or matters affecting a particular employee.

* * * * *

# DATE & TIME:

*Thursday, December 16, 2004 at 10 a.m.*

# PLACE:

999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC (Ninth Floor).

# STATUS:

This meeting will be open to the public.

# ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED:

Correction and Approval of Minutes.

Merit and Service Awards.

Election of Officers.

Draft Advisory Opinion 2004-41: CUNA Mutual Insurance Society, by counsel Cleta Mitchell.

Draft Advisory Opinion 2004-42: Pharmavite LLC, by counsel Robert K. Kelner.

Draft Advisory Opinion 2004-43: Missouri Broadcasters Association, by counsel Gregg P. Skall.

Draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Overnight Mail.

Draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Payroll Deductions.

Routine Administrative Matters.

# PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION:

Mr. Robert Biersack, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

Mary W. Dove,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 04-27184  Filed 12-7-04; 3:12 pm]

BILLING CODE 6715-01-M
#### Frank D. Benicasa, Respondent, v. Sylvia Jacobs, Appellant.

In an action to recover damages for injuries to person and property, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated July 7, 1960, granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and directing an assessment of damages, pursuant to rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice. Order reversed, without costs, and motion denied. In our opinion, there are questions of fact which preclude granting summary judgment. Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur.
```

[Federal Register: April 19, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 74)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 20323-20324]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr19ap10-16]                         

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2009-1050; Airspace Docket No. 09-ASW-40]
RIN 2120-AA66

 
Proposed Amendment to and Establishment of Restricted Areas and 
Other Special Use Airspace; Razorback Range Airspace Complex, AR

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

[[Page 20324]]

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); correction.

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

SUMMARY: This action corrects a NPRM published in the Federal Register 
March 30, 2010. In that NPRM, the airspace docket number was 
incorrectly published as ``09-ASW-3'' instead of ``09-ASW-40.'' This 
action corrects that error.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, April 19, 2010. The Director of the 
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and 
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Abbott, Airspace and Rules 
Group, Office of System Operations Airspace and AIM, Federal Aviation 
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; 
telephone: (202) 267-8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

History

    On March 30, 2010, a NPRM for Airspace Docket No. 09-ASW-3, FAA 
Docket No. FAA-2009-1050, was published in the Federal Register (75 FR 
15632) to amend and establish restricted areas and other special use 
airspace in the Razorback Range Airspace Complex, AR. The airspace 
docket number in that NPRM was incorrect and should have read ``09-ASW-
40'' instead of ``09-ASW-3.'' This action corrects that error.

Correction to Proposed Rule

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, in proposed 
rule FAA Docket No. FAA-2009-1050, on March 30, 2010 (75 FR 15632), 
make the following correction:

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    On page 15632, columns 2, and 3, and on page 15633, column 1, 
correct the airspace docket number to read as follows: Airspace Docket 
No. 09-ASW-40.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 8, 2010.
Edith V. Parish,
Manager, Airspace and Rules Group.
[FR Doc. 2010-8829 Filed 4-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
#### Ed. V. Price & Company, Appellant, v. St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company, Appellee.

Gen. No. 20,202.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Abstract of the Decision.

Carriers, § *93*****—what evidence improper to show shipment.*In an action against a carrier for failure to deliver a trunk, evidence of a witness that he had investigated the records of defendant and found no entries of the shipment was inadmissible as it did not answer the testimony of the plaintiff or tend to answer it, it appearing that defendant’s negative .evidence referred to other dates than that on which the plaintiff shipped the trunk.

Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Wiixiam E. Dever, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1914.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed January 5, 1915.

Rehearing denied January 16, 1915.

Statement of the Case.

Action by Ed. V. Price *&*Company, a corporation, against St. Lonis Southwestern Railway Company, a corporation, to recover the value of a trunk of samples of clothes. It appeared that J. R. Bowman was a traveling salesman for the plaintiff and that he delivered the trunk to defendant for shipment to Chicago, at Onalaska, Arkansas, and that the goods were never received by the plaintiff. A judgment was rendered for the defendant and the plaintiff appealed.

Gann, Peaks & Townley, for appellant.

Jeffery & Campbell, for appellee; Herbert J. Campbell, of counsel.

*

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Mr. Justice Smith

delivered the opinion of the court.
Exhibit 31.1








I, Susan B. Sheffield, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of GM Financial Consumer Automobile Receivables Trust 2019-4  (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);





2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;





4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and





5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.





In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Computershare Trust Company, N.A.








By:/s/ Susan B. SheffieldName:Susan B. SheffieldTitle:Executive Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerDate:March 3, 2023
### §1862o–11. Repealed. Pub. L. 114–329, title II, §204(a)(3)(B), Jan. 6, 2017, 130 Stat. 2999

Section, Pub. L. 110–69, title VII, §7031(b), Aug. 9, 2007, 121 Stat. 711, related to evaluation and report by Director on STEM programs.
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Ethel Harris, Deceased.

Decree unanimously affirmed, without costs, for the reasons stated at Surrogate’s Court, Oliver, S. (Appeal from decree of Wayne County Surrogate’s Court— claim against estate.) Present—Marsh, P. J., Cardamone, Dillon, Hancock, Jr., and Witmer, JJ. [88 Misc 2d 60.]
#### Paul Feyer, Respondent, v. Eversharp, Inc., et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

Present — Peek, P. J., Dore, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.; Peck, P. J., and Shientag, J., dissent on the ground that appellants are not proper parties to this action as the only purpose of their joinder was to effect an attachment by indirection of any assets they may hold of the other defendants; Shientag, J., dissents on the additional ground that if the defendants in controversy are to be allowed to remain in the action at this time, the complaint as against them should be ordered dismissed by this court, unless, within six months, jurisdiction is obtained over one or more of the main defendants, and that, in the meantime, and until such jurisdiction is obtained, all proceedings in the action relating to the defendants in controversy, except to discontinue, should be ordered stayed. [See *post,*p. 1026.]