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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NICOLASA MENDOZA DE MARTINEZ, AKA Nicholasa Martinez, AKA Nicolasa Mendoza Peregrino,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 19

- 71611

Agency No. A023

- 036

- 463

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 20, 2021 * *

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Nicolasa Mendoza de Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro

se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her

appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision d enying her application for

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

APR 28 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 71611

asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture

(“CAT”)

. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Garcia

- Milian v. Holde r , 755

F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014)

. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition

for review.

Mendoza de Martinez does not raise, and there fore waives, any challenge to

the BIA ’s determination that she failed to challenge the IJ’s denial of asylum

. See

Lopez

- Vasquez v. Holder , 706 F.3d 1072, 1079

- 80 (9th Cir. 2013) ( concluding

petitioner waived challenge to issue not specifically raised and argued in the

opening brief

).

Because th e agency found Mendoza de Martinez removable due to her

conviction s for a crime involving moral turpitude and a crime related to a

controlled substance , our jurisdiction to review the agency’s particularly serious

crime determination i s limited to colorabl e constitutional claims and questions of

law. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C)

- (D); Pechenkov v. Holder , 705 F.3d 444, 448

-

49 (9th Cir. 2012). To the extent Mendoza de Martinez challenge s the agency’s

weighing of factors in its particularly serious crime determination , we lack

jurisdiction to consider the contentions

. See Pechenkov , 705 F.3d at 448

- 49. Thus,

Mendoza de Martinez’s withholding of removal claim s fail. See 8 U.S.C. §

1231(b)(3)(B); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(d)(2).3 19

- 71611

Sub stantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of deferral of removal

under CAT because Mendoza de Martinez failed to show it is more likely than not

s he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if

returned to Mexico

. See Aden v. Holder , 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). We

reject as unsupported by the record Mendoza de Martinez’s contention that the

agency failed to consider evidence or otherwise erred in its analysis of her claim.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
Exhibit 32.01

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Serena Software, Inc. (the Company) for the fiscal quarter ended
April 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John Nugent, 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 at the dates and for
the periods presented.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/    JOHN NUGENTJohn Nugent President
and Chief Executive Officer And Director


Date: June 14, 2010

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

This Certification is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference
into any filing of the registrant 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 the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language
contained in such filing.
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976

              														Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, September 30, 1976.						https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/1130,			accessed on September 6, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 105 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.Con.Res.105
                                       Agreed to October 2, 2008        

                       One Hundred Tenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday,
            the third day of January, two thousand and eight

                          Concurrent Resolution

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 6063, an Act to authorize the 
programs of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and for 
other purposes, the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall make 
the following corrections:
    In section 601(b)(2)(A)(iii) of the bill, strike ``Orbiter''.
    In section 611(d)(1) of the bill, strike ``first President'' and 
insert ``President''.
    In section 611(e)(3) of the bill, strike ``correctly'' and insert 
``currently''.
    In section 611(e)(7) of the bill, strike ``extention'' and insert 
``extension''.
    In section 612 of the bill, strike ``operations'' and insert 
``operational''.
    In section 1119 of the bill, strike ``The Report'' and insert ``The 
report''.
  Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.

  Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.
```
United States Environmental Protection Agency 

Electronic Docket Index for 

[EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0094] 

Revision of Air Quality Implementation Plan; California; 

Placer County Air Pollution Control District and 

Feather River Air Quality Management District; 

Stationary Source Permits 

Docket Index

Category/ Item Number

I. SIP Submittal Documents

ß SIP submittal letter from CARB, dated November 18, 2011 (Placer) I-A 

ß SIP submittal letter from CARB, dated September 21, 2012 (Feather River) I-B 

ß Rule 502 amended on October 13, 2011 I-C 

ß Rule 10.1 amended on February 6, 2012 I-D 

ß PCAPCD, Staff Report for Proposed Amendment of Rule 502, New Source Review; 

undated 

I-E 

ß FRAQMD, Staff Report for Proposed Amendments: Regulation X Rule 10.1, New 

Source Review; undated 

I-F 

II. Federal Register Notices 

ß 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) General Preamble for Title I – 1990 Amendments II-A 

ß 70 FR 39413 (July 8, 2005) II-B 

ß 73 FR 28321(May 16, 2008) Implementation of NSR for PM2.5 II-C 

ß 76 FR 28944 (May 19, 2011) NPRM Rules 502 and 10.1 II-D 

ß 76 FR 44809 (July 27, 2011) NFRM Rules 502 and 10.1 II-E 

III. Other Relevant Documents

ß Technical Support Document for PCAPCD Rule 502, dated February 8, 2013 III-A 

ß Technical Support Document for PCAPCD Rules 214 & 217, dated May 6, 2011 III-B 

ß Technical Support Document for FRAQMD Rule 10.1, dated February 8, 2013 III-C 

ß Technical Support Document for FRAQMD Rule 10.1, dated May 9, 2011 III-D 

IV. EPA Rulemaking Documents 

ß Federal Register Notice of Proposed Rulemaking dated February 22, 2013 

ß Reserved FR NFRM 

Notes:
§ 2590.715-2705 Prohibiting discrimination against participants and beneficiaries based on a health factor. ( a ) *In general.* A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group health insurance coverage must comply with the requirements of § 2590.702 of this part.
( b ) *Applicability date.* This section is applicable to group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group health insurance coverage for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2014.
[78 FR 33186, June 3, 2013]
#### KAIFER et v OHIO LEATHER CO et BEECHER et v OHIO LEATHER CO et

Ohio Supreme Court

Nos 22135 & 36.

Decided June 18, 1930

Opinion by

ROBINSON, J.

CORPORATIONS-Actions (10 L)

Where the affairs of a corporation have reached such a financial status that it has been unable for a period of years to pay dividends upon its preferred stock, and more than two-thirds of its stockholders of all kinds have voted for a plan of re-organization, which involves the surrender of all outstanding stock, including preferred, and the exchange thereof for re-organization stock at a reduced relative value, or, if at the same relative value, upon the payment of an additional consideration therefor, and all' stockholders have been offered an opportunity to participate in such reorganization upon the same terms, having regard for the relative value of the stock, and a re-organization has thereby been accomplished and sufficient new capital has thereby been realized for the corporation to enable it to evolve from an insolvent, non-dividend-paying concern to a solvent, going, dividend-paying coroporation, and certain holders of pre-re-organization preferred stock, with full notice at the time of the re-organization of the financial condition of the corporation and of the plan of re-organization, have declined to either exchange their stock for re-organization stock of less par value or to pay an additional consideration in exchange for re-organization stock of the same par value, and have taken no action to'prevent such re-organization becoming effective and have remained quiescent until large sums of money have been paid into the corporation by purchasers of re-organiz,ation stock, and until the corporation, after a period of years, by reason of the new capital obtained by the re-organization, has become rehabilitated and has become able not only to pay divi-, derids upon all its stock but .also to.retire a considerable portion of its preferred stock; and such holders of pre-re-organization preferred stock then bring an action in equity to have the priority of their preferred stock declared:

(160 S2b) HELD: The doctrine of laches will apply to prevent such pre-re-organization stockholders from securing to themselves the earnings from the money contributed by the re-organization stockholders, to the detriment of such re-organization stocksolders, where no reason appears for the failure to institute the action at a time when to afford relief sought would have done no wrong to such re-organization stockholders.

Kinkade, Jones, Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ., concur.
#### Commonwealth ex rel. Nibbio v. Johnston

*Guistino Nibbio,*p. p., for relator.

*Victor H. Blanc,*District Attorney, and *Benjamin H. Renshaw,*Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth.

November 19, 1958.

Milner, J.,

— The within petition came on before Milner, J., in the court of quarter sessions on August 15, 1958, pursuant to our rule of civil procedure no. 991. Relator was convicted of sodomy by a jury on November 27,1957, and on December *25316, 1957, he was sentenced by President Judge Bok to a term of not less than two nor more than five years in the Eastern State Penitentiary. He was represented by Herman I. Pollock, Esq., the voluntary defender. His present petition relates to alleged trial errors involving the competency and credibility of witnesses who appeared against him, all of which are matters which should have been raised on appeal. The writ of habeas corpus may not be used as a substitute for appeal : Commonwealth ex rel. Lewis v. Tees, 177 Pa. Superior Ct. 132 (1955) ; Commonwealth ex rel. Franell v. Ashe, 134 Pa. Superior Ct. 96 (1939). For this reason the petition was dismissed without hearing.
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

August 10, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00423

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.T.H., A CHILD

, From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017

- PA

- 01435 Honorable Richard Garcia, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant appeals the trial court’s termination of her parental rights. Appellant’s court

appointed attorney has filed a brief and motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. We have held that in parental

- termination appeals, a procedure akin to Anders is necessary to best protect the statutory right to counsel on appeal, to provide a procedural mechanism for counsel to fulfill his ethical obligations, to assist the court in deciding appeals, and to provide consistent procedures for all indigent litigants. See In re R.R. , No. 04

- 03

- 00096

- CV, 2003 WL 21157944, at *4 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2003, no pet.). In compliance w ith the procedure set out in Anders

, appellant’s attorney has shown that he sent a letter to appellant, which explained her right to review the record and file a pro se brief. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re R.R. , 2003 WL 2 1157944, at *4. In the letter to appellant, counsel stated that he had enclosed copies of the brief and motion to withdraw. See Kelly , 436 S.W.3d at 313; In re R.R.
, 2003 WL 21157944, at *4.

Counsel’s letter also advised appellant that if she wished to r eview the appellate record, she must file a motion in this court. Counsel enclosed a form motion for this purpose. See Kelly

, 436 S.W.3d at 313; In re R.R. , 2003 WL 21157944, at *4. However, counsel did not inform appellant of the deadline for filing this motion. Therefore, if appellant would like a copy of the appellate record, she must file the motion in this court no later than August 2 2 , 2018

. Additionally, i f appellant desires to file a pro se brief, we ORDER that s he must do so on or before Septemb er 2 1 , 2018 . If appellant files a pro se brief, appellee may file a responsive brief no later than twenty days after the date appellant’s pro se brief is filed in this court. We ORDER the motion to withdraw, filed by appellant’s counsel, to be HELD IN ABEYANCE pending further order of the court._________________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

co urt on this 10th day of August, 201 8

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 99.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

     Pursuant  to  Section  906 of the  Public  Company  Accounting  Reform  and
Investor  Protection  Act of 2002 (18  U.S.C.ss.  1350,  as adopted),  I, Dianne
Hatton-Ward, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
hereby certifies that, to the best of his or her knowledge:

          1. The  Company's  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
     June 30, 2003, and to which this  Certification is attached as Exhibit 99.1
     (the "PERIODIC  REPORT") fully  complies with the  requirements  of Section
     13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

          2. The information  contained in the Periodic Report fairly  presents,
     in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end
     of the period  covered by the Periodic  Report and results of operations of
     the Company for the period covered by the Periodic Report.

Dated: August 8, 2003


S/ Dianne Hatton-Ward
------------------------
Dianne Hatton-Ward
CEO & CFO

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


THIS  CERTIFICATION   ACCOMPANIES  THIS  REPORT  PURSUANT  TO  SS.  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.
#### DONAHUE v STATE

Ohio Appeals, 4th Dist, Vinton Co

Decided October 6, 1930

W. J. Jones, McArthur, for Donahue.

C. O. Chapman, Prosecuting Attorney, McArthur, for State.

BY THE COURT

We have examined the record and find no evidence of the accused ever having been convicted of a first offense. Therefore, the judgment of the court finding him guilty as of a second offense is erroneous. This error alone, however, would only require a reversal of the judgment as to the sentence imposed and a remanding of the case to the trial court for resentence.

The testimony discloses that it is highly improbable that the several persons testifying for the defense could have ridden in the car of the defendant shortly before he was arrested without having discovered the liquor which the state claims was found on the floor of his automobile. The evidence presented by' the record raises such a grave doubt as to the defendant’s guilt that the judgment must be reversed as against the manifest weight of the evidence.

For the reasons indicated the judgment is reversed and the case remanded to the Court of Common Pleas.

Middleton, PJ, Mauck and Blosser, JJ, concur.
#### In the Matter of Alan S. Adolph (Admitted as Alan Seth Adolph), a Suspended Attorney.

[700 NYS2d 810]

—Application for reinstatement granted and petitioner reinstated as an attorney and counselor-at-law in the State of New York, effective the date hereof. No opinion. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.
§ 37.38 What information must grant applicants and recipients provide to CRC? In addition to the information which must be collected, maintained, and, upon request, submitted to CRC under § 37.37: ( a ) Each grant applicant and recipient must promptly notify the Director when any administrative enforcement actions or lawsuits are filed against it alleging discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, political affiliation or belief, and for beneficiaries only, citizenship or participation in a WIA Title I-financially assisted program or activity. This notification must include: ( 1 ) The names of the parties to the action or lawsuit;
( 2 ) The forum in which each case was filed; and
( 3 ) The relevant case numbers.
( b ) Each grant applicant (as part of its application) and recipient (as part of a compliance review conducted under § 37.63, or monitoring activity carried out under § 37.65) must provide the following information: ( 1 ) The name of any other Federal agency that conducted a civil rights compliance review or complaint investigation, and that found the grant applicant or recipient to be in noncompliance, during the two years before the grant application was filed or CRC began its examination; and
( 2 ) Information about any administrative enforcement actions or lawsuits that alleged discrimination on any protected basis, and that were filed against the grant applicant or recipient during the two years before the application or renewal application, compliance review, or monitoring activity. This information must include: ( i ) The names of the parties;
( ii ) The forum in which each case was filed; and
( iii ) The relevant case numbers.
( c ) At the discretion of the Director, grant applicants and recipients may be required to provide, in a timely manner, any information and data necessary to investigate complaints and conduct compliance reviews on grounds prohibited under the nondiscrimination and equal opportunity provisions of WIA and this part.
( d ) At the discretion of the Director, recipients may be required to provide, in a timely manner, the particularized information and/or to submit the periodic reports that the Director considers necessary to determine compliance with the nondiscrimination and equal opportunity provisions of WIA or this part.
( e ) At the discretion of the Director, grant applicants may be required to submit, in a timely manner, the particularized information necessary to determine whether or not the grant applicant, if financially assisted, would be able to comply with the nondiscrimination and equal opportunity provisions of WIA or this part.
( f ) Where designation of individuals by race or ethnicity is required, the guidelines of the Office of Management and Budget must be used.
§ 2204.301 Application requirements. ( a ) A party seeking an award under EAJA shall file an application with the judge that conducted the adversarial adjudication within 30 days after the final disposition of the adversary adjudication.
( b ) The application shall identify the applicant and the proceeding for which an award is sought. The application shall show that the applicant has prevailed and identify the position of the Secretary that the applicant alleges was not substantially justified; or, if the applicant has not prevailed, shall show that the Secretary's demand was substantially in excess of the decision of the judge or Commission and was unreasonable when compared with that decision under the facts and circumstances of that case. The application shall also identify the Secretary's position(s) in the proceeding that the applicant alleges was (were) not substantially justified or the Secretary's demand that is alleged to be excessive and unreasonable. Unless the applicant is an individual, the application shall also state the number of employees of the applicant and briefly describe the type and purpose of its organization or business.
( c ) The application shall also show that the applicant meets the definition of “party” in § 2204.201, including adequate documentation of its net worth, as set forth in § 2204.302.
( d ) The application shall state the amount of fees and expenses for which an award is sought, subject to the requirements and limitations as set forth in 5 U.S.C. 504(b)(1)(A), with adequate documentation as set forth in § 2204.303.
( e ) The application shall be signed by the applicant or an authorized officer, attorney, or agent of the applicant. It shall also contain or be accompanied by a written verification under penalty of perjury that the information provided in the application is true and correct.