alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUAN CARLOS VERA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-71936

Agency No. A097-306-266

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted March 17, 2011

San Francisco, California

Before: WALLACE, FERNANDEZ, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

Juan Carlos Vera petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’

decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have

jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny Vera’s petition. 

Substantial evidence supports that Board’s conclusion that Vera was not

targeted on account of a protected ground. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014,

FILED

MAR 31 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
1018 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that the Board’s decision must be affirmed unless

“the applicant shows that the evidence compels the conclusion that the asylum

decision was incorrect”). Here, the record indicates that Vera “was threatened by

police in Argentina for seeking redress for an attack (rape) upon” his brother. 

Thus, Vera “fears harm because of a personal matter between him” and a few

rogue police officers – not based on a protected ground. See Molina-Morales v.

I.N.S., 237 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2001). Additionally, the severity of harm that

Vera experienced in Argentina – including his brief detention, an isolated threat

from police, and a single incident of physical mistreatment – does not compel the

conclusion that Vera was subjected to past persecution. See Prasad v. I.N.S., 47

F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding that an applicant who was “hit and kicked

while being briefly detained” did not compel a finding of persecution). Only in

“extreme cases” involving “repeated and especially menacing death threats” have

we held such threats to establish past persecution. See Lim v. I.N.S., 224 F.3d 929,

936 (9th Cir. 2000). 

We also conclude that Vera’s due process claim lacks merit. There is no

evidence suggesting that the immigration judge abandoned her role as a neutral

adjudicator. See Reyes-Melendez v. I.N.S., 342 F.3d 1001, 1007 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Instead, the record indicates that Vera had a “reasonable opportunity to present”

his case and that he received the “full and fair hearing” to which he was entitled. 
See Sanchez-Cruz v. I.N.S., 255 F.3d 775, 779 (9th Cir. 2001). To the extent that

Vera seeks due process relief on the basis that his brother was granted asylum, it is

clear that his brother’s case involves circumstances materially different from those

at issue here. See Wang v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 1015, 1019 n.2 (9th Cir. 2003)

(indicating that our immigration system should not permit “inconsistent treatment”

of family members that assert claims based on identical facts). 

PETITION DENIED.
#### Cohen et al., Appellants, *v.*A. M. Byers Company et al.

Argued January 20, 1950.

Before Maxey, C. J., Drew, Linn, Stern and Stearns, JJ.

*Alexander Cooper,*with him *Cooper & Goodman*and *Aronstam & Karp,*for appellants.

*William II. Eckert,*with him *William K. Unvermgt, Milton W. Lamproplos*and *Smith, Buchanan & Ingersoll,*for appellees.

January 23, 1950:

Opinion

per Curiam,

This is an appeal from the decree refusing a motion for a preliminary injunction. This Court said in *Murray v. Hill,*359 Pa. 540, 541, 59 A. 2d 877, that: “ Our uniform rule is that, on an appeal from a decree which refuses, grants or continues a preliminary injunction, we will look only to see if there were any apparently *619reasonable grounds for tbe action of the court below, and we will not further consider the merits of the case or pass upon the reasons for or against such action, unless it is plain that no such grounds existed or that the rules of law relied on are palpably wrong or clearly inapplicable.’ ” (Citing cases.)

In this case there *are*apparently reasonable grounds for the action of the court below and for this reason the decree is affirmed.

Costs to be paid by the appellants.
EX-10.2



 Exhibit 10.2 

ADVANCED DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, INC. 

First Amendment to the 

2008 Restricted Stock Plan 

This First Amendment (this “First Amendment”) to the 2008 Restricted Stock Plan (as amended from time to time, the
“Plan”) is made and entered into effective as of February 8, 2017 by Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”). 

WHEREAS, the Plan references a Stockholders Agreement that has been terminated; and 

WHEREAS, Section 18 of the Plan provides that the Company, by action of its Board of Directors, reserves the right to amend,
modify or terminate at any time the Plan; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, effective as of the date hereof, the Plan is hereby amended as
follows: 
 1. Section 2(l) of the Plan is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: “[Intentionally
Omitted].” 
 2. Section 11 of the Plan is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: “[Intentionally
Omitted].” 
 Except as set forth in this First Amendment, all of the terms and conditions of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this First Amendment effective as of the date hereof. 

 

			
	ADVANCED DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Kevin C. Talley

		 	Kevin C. Talley,
		 	EVP & CAO
#### Wilson Losure v. Jacob M. Miller.

Filed June 19, 1895.

No. 6137.

Review: Motion for New Trial: Sufficiency of Evidence. An objection that the findings and judgment are not sustained by the evidence will not be considered by this court where the record does not disclose that a motion for a new trial, setting up that ground was presented to the trial court and a ruling obtained on the motion.

Error from the district court of Knox county. Tried below before Allen, J.

*466
      *O. W. Rice*and *W. L. Henderson,*for plaintiff in error.

*J. H. Berryman, contra.*

Norval, C. J.

This is an action to recover damages for an alleged malicious prosecution. There was a trial to the court, a jury being waived, with findings and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant prosecutes a petition in error to this court.

But a single proposition is discussed in the briefs, and that is the evidence in the case is insufficient to sustain the findings and judgment; and this question cannot be considered by this court, for the reason the record fails to disclose that a ruling of the trial court was made upon the motion for a new trial. *(Hull v. Miller,*6 Neb., 128; *Smith v. Spaulding,*34 Neb., 128; *Scroggin v. National Lumber Co.,*41 Neb., 195.) The judgment is

Affirmed.
No. 11-9061.

#### Cathell *v.*Folino, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Greene, et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### § 60-40.9 Severability.

Should a court of competent jurisdiction hold any provision(s) of this part to be invalid, such action will not affect any other provision of this part or chapter.

[88 FR 51735, Aug. 4, 2023]
EXHIBIT 23
<PAGE>
KPMG
P.O. Box 7108
Billings, MT 59103


                         Independent Auditor's Consent
                         -----------------------------



The Board of Directors
Crazy Woman Creek Bancorp Incorporated

We consent to  incorproation  by reference in the  registration  statement  (No.
333-53543) on Form S-8 of Crazy Woman Creek Bancorp  Incorporated  of our report
dated  October 29, 1999  relating to the  consolidated  balance  sheets of Crazy
Woman Creek  Bancorp  Incorporated  and  subsidiary as of September 30, 1999 and
1998 and the related consolidated statements of income, stockholders' equity and
comprehensive  income,  and cash flows for the years then  ended,  which  report
appears in the  September  30, 1999 annual  report on Form 10-KSB of Crazy Woman
Creek Bancorp Incorporated.



/s/KPMG LLP

Billings, Montana
December 24, 1999
# Comments on: Circuit Judge Wallach to Assume Senior Status on May 31, 2021
#### § 101.125 Temporary fixed antenna height restrictions.

The overall antenna structure heights employed by mobile stations in the Local Television Transmission Service and by stations authorized to operate at temporary fixed locations may not exceed the height criteria set forth in § 17.7 of this chapter, unless in each instance, authorization for use of a specific maximum antenna height (above ground and above mean sea level) for each location has been obtained from the Commission prior to erection of the antenna. Requests for such authorization must show the inclusive dates of the proposed operation. (Complete information as to rules concerning the construction, marking and lighting of antenna structures is contained in part 17 of this chapter.)
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-50179 No. 97-50214 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ARTUMUS CHARLES MATTHEWS, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. W-93-CR-9-1 USDC No. W-96-CV-462

- - - - - - - - - - August 15, 1997 Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Artumus Charles Matthews, federal prisoner #60704-080, seeks to appeal from the grant of the Government’s motion to reduce his sentence and from the denial of his own motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Matthews moves to strike the appellee’s brief; his motion to strike is DENIED. We must examine the basis of our jurisdiction on our own motion if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby , 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5thNo. 97-50179 No. 97-50214 -2- Cir. 1987). A timely notice of appeal is a prerequisite for the exercise of our jurisdiction. United States v. Carr , 979 F.2d 51, 55 (5th Cir. 1992). Matthews did not file a timely notice of appeal following the order granting the Government’s motion for reduction of sentence; accordingly, appeal no. 97-50179 is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction. On April 24, 1996, the President signed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), which applies to the instant case because Matthews’s motion was filed in the district court after April 24, 1996. See Green v. Johnson , 116 F.3d 1115 (5th Cir. 1997). The AEDPA amended 28 U.S.C. § 2253 to require a certificate of appealability (COA) by a circuit justice or judge before an appeal may be taken in a § 2255 proceeding. § 2253(c)(1). A COA may be issued only if the prisoner has made a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” § 2253(c)(2). The district court must rule on a COA before Matthews may request a COA from this court. See Muniz v. Johnson , 114 F.3d 43, 45 (5th Cir. 1997); United States v. Youngblood , 116 F.3d 1113 (5th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, Matthews’s § 2255 case, appeal no. 97-50214, is REMANDED for the limited purpose of allowing the district court to determine whether any of the issues Matthews wishes to raise merit granting Matthews a COA. Appeal no. 97-50179 DISMISSED. Appeal no. 97-50214 LIMITED REMAND.No. 97-50179 No. 97-50214 -3-
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: November 10, 2016 522732 

________________________________

In the Matter of ANTHONY

ARRIAGA,

Petitioner,

v MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

MICHAEL CAPRA, as 

Superintendent of Sing Sing

Correctional Facility, 

et al.,

Respondents.

________________________________

Calendar Date: September 20, 2016

Before: Garry, J.P., Egan Jr., Lynch, Clark and Aarons, JJ.

__________

Anthony Arriaga, Ossining, petitioner pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J.

Mastracco of counsel), for respondents.

__________

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this

Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to

review a determination of respondent Superintendent of Sing Sing

Correctional Facility finding petitioner guilty of violating

certain prison disciplinary rules. 

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to

challenge a tier II determination finding him guilty of violating

certain prison disciplinary rules. The Attorney General has

advised this Court that the determination has since been

administratively reversed, all references thereto have been

expunged from petitioner's institutional record and the mandatory

$5 surcharge has been refunded to petitioner's inmate account. 
-2- 522732 

Given that petitioner has received all of the relief to which he

is entitled, the petition must be dismissed as moot (see Matter

of James v Prack, 137 AD3d 1390, 1391 [2016]). Contrary to his

request, petitioner is not entitled to be restored to the status

he enjoyed prior to the disciplinary determination (see Matter of

West v Annucci, 134 AD3d 1379, 1380 [2015]). 

Garry, J.P., Egan Jr., Lynch, Clark and Aarons, JJ.,

concur.

ADJUDGED that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without

costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. AP-76,635

EX PARTE ERIC LAMOND DAVIS, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 08CR-123 IN THE 349 DISTRICT COURT

TH

FROM HOUSTON COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of murder and

sentenced to life imprisonment. The Sixth Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Davis v. State,

No. 06-09-00033-CR (Tex. App.–Texarkana Sep. 18, 2009). 

Applicant contends, inter alia, that his appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance

because counsel failed to timely notify Applicant of his right to file a petition for discretionary

review. We remanded this application to the trial court for findings of fact and conclusions of law.
2

Appellate counsel filed an affidavit with the trial court. Based on that affidavit, the trial court

has entered findings of fact and conclusions of law that appellate counsel failed to notify Applicant

that he had a right to file a pro-se petition for discretionary review. Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25

(Tex. Crim. App. 1997); Ex parte Florentino, 206 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); TEX.R.APP.

P. 48.4. We find, therefore, that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time petition

for discretionary review of the judgment of the Sixth Court of Appeals in Cause No. 06-09-00033-

CR that affirmed his conviction in Case No. 08CR-123 from the 349 Judicial District Court of th

Houston County. Applicant shall file petition for discretionary review with this Court within 30 days

of the date on which this Court’s mandate issues.

Applicant’s remaining claims are dismissed. Ex Parte Torres, 943 S.W.2d 469 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1997).

Delivered: September 14, 2011

Do not publish
426P15

#### State v. Andrew Clayton Ledbetter

1. Defs PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA15-322)

1. Denied

2. State’s Motion to Deem Response Timely Filed

2. Allowed
No. 11-1052.

#### Cunningham et al. *v.*Offshore Specialty Fabricators, Inc., et al.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 99.1



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 Andrea
Electronics Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Christopher P. Sauvigne, 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 to the best of my knowledge and belief:



|1. |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and 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 as of and for the
period covered by the Report.
|-- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                  
|------------------
|Date: May 13, 2003
|                  



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



31



---

Exhibit 99.1



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 Andrea Electronics Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the
period ending March 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Richard A. Maue, Chief Financial 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 to the best of my knowledge and belief:



|1. |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and 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 as of and for the
period covered by the Report.
|-- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                  
|------------------
|Date: May 13, 2003
|                  



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



32
FORM 8A. Entry of Appearance Form 8A (p.1) 

July 2020

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

Case Number:

Short Case Caption:

Instructions: Refer to Fed. Cir. R. 47.3 for requirements governing 

representation and appearance in this court. Counsel must immediately file an 

amended Entry of Appearance if contact information changes and update 

information through PACER’s Manage My Account. Non-admitted government 

counsel should enter N/A in lieu of an admission date. Use the second page to 

add additional counsel.

Party Information. List all parties, intervenors, amicus curiae, or movants 

represented by below counsel; “et al.” is not permitted.

Principal Counsel: Admission Date: 

Firm/Agency/Org.:

Address:

Phone: Email:

Other Counsel: Admission Date: 

Firm/Agency/Org.:

Address:

Phone: Email:

I certify under penalty of perjury that (1) the submitted information is true and 

accurate and (2) I am authorized to enter an appearance by all other listed counsel. 

Date: _________________ Signature:

Name: 
FORM 8A. Entry of Appearance Form 8A (p.2) 

July 2020

[DO NOT SUBMIT THIS PAGE IF IT IS BLANK.]

Other Counsel: Admission Date: 

Firm/Agency/Org.:

Address:

Phone: Email:

Other Counsel: Admission Date: 

Firm/Agency/Org.:

Address:

Phone: Email:

Other Counsel: Admission Date: 

Firm/Agency/Org.:

Address:

Phone: Email:

Other Counsel: Admission Date: 

Firm/Agency/Org.:

Address:

Phone: Email:

Other Counsel: Admission Date: 

Firm/Agency/Org.:

Address:

Phone: Email:
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-06-00661-CR

Charles Myers, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 147TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-DC-06-904096, HONORABLE WILFORD FLOWERS, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant’s motion to withdraw notice of appeal is granted. See Tex. R. App. P.

42.2(a). The appeal is dismissed.

__________________________________________

Bob Pemberton, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Pemberton and Waldrop

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: April 24, 2007

Do Not Publish
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.2206 Confidentiality of Commission-held data. ( a ) The Commission will take all reasonable steps necessary to protect all Confidential Broadcaster Information for all reverse auction applicants from the time the broadcast television licensee applies to participate in the reverse auction until the reassignments and reallocations under section 6403(b)(1)(B) of the Spectrum Act become effective or until two years after public notice that the reverse auction is complete and that no such reassignments and reallocations shall become effective.
( b ) In addition, if reassignments and reallocations under section 6403(b)(1)(B) of the Spectrum Act become effective, the Commission will continue to take all reasonable steps necessary to protect Confidential Broadcaster Information pertaining to any unsuccessful reverse auction bid and pertaining to any unsuccessful application to participate in the reverse auction until two years after the effective date.
( c ) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, the Commission may disclose Confidential Broadcaster Information if required to do so by law, such as by court order.
( d ) *Confidential Broadcaster Information* includes the following Commission-held data of a broadcast television licensee participating in the reverse auction: ( 1 ) The name of the applicant licensee;
( 2 ) The licensee's channel number, call sign, facility identification number, and network affiliation; and
( 3 ) Any other information that may reasonably be withheld to protect the identity of the licensee, as determined by the Commission.
No. 10-11007.

#### O’Garro *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 23.2





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S‐3 (No. 333-230423) and S‐8 (No. 333-190412, No. 333-175912, No. 333-135416, No. 333-129748, No. 333-100628, No. 333-84485, and No. 333-72967) of Affiliated Managers Group, Inc. of our report  dated April 1, 2019 relating to the financial statements of AQR Capital Management Holdings, LLC, which appears in this Form 10‐K/A.











/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


New York, New York


April 1, 2019
491P02-7

#### Dontez Simuel v. Senior Resident Superior Judge Donald Stephens and Senior Resident Judge Paul C. Ridgeway

Pit’s *Pro Se*Motion for Writ of Prohibition

Denied

Ervin, J.,

recused