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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EVELYN NINETH MORAN-ALVAREZ,

 Petitioner,

 v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General,

 Respondent.

No. 22-716

Agency No.

A209-234-395

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 15, 2023**

Before: TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

Evelyn Nineth Moran-Alvarez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions 

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

her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her applications 

for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against 

* 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

AUG 23 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 22-716

Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for 

substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 

F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for review.

Because Moran-Alvarez does not contest the BIA’s determination that she 

failed to the challenge the IJ’s finding that she did not experience harm rising to 

the level of persecution, we do not address it. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 

F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s 

conclusion that Moran-Alvarez failed to establish a reasonable possibility of future 

persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility 

of future persecution “too speculative”). Because Moran-Alvarez failed to 

establish eligibility for asylum, she failed to establish eligibility for withholding of 

removal. See Villegas Sanchez v. Garland, 990 F.3d 1173, 1183 (9th Cir. 2021).

Thus, Moran-Alvarez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection 

because Moran-Alvarez failed to show it is more likely than not she will be 

tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to

Guatemala. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); see also

Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of 

torture). 
3 22-716

Moran-Alvarez’s request for remand based on the IJ’s citation to Matter of 

A-B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 316 (AG 2018) is denied. See Park v. Garland, 72 F.4th 

965, 979 (9th Cir. 2023) (“Where the BIA conducts a de novo review, any error 

committed by the IJ will be rendered harmless by the BIA’s application of the 

correct legal standard”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
AFS-12-178-E 

March 8, 2012 

 Exemption No. 10107A 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2002-11752 

Mr. Bryan Carricaburu 

Vice President/Director of Operations 

Peninsula Airways, Inc. 

6100 Boeing Avenue 

Anchorage, AK 99502 

Dear Mr. Carricaburu: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption 

No. 10107, as amended. It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect and lists 

the conditions and limitations. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated January 19, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

on behalf of Peninsula Airways, Inc., d.b.a. PenAir for an extension of Exemption No. 10107. 

That exemption from §§ 91.411(b) and 91.413(c) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations 

(14 CFR) allowed PenAir to perform air traffic control (ATC) transponder tests and 

inspections and altimeter system and altimeter reporting equipment tests and inspections for 

its part 121 aircraft maintained under a continuous airworthiness maintenance program. The 

exemption also permitted PenAir to perform similar tests and inspections on its part 135 

aircraft maintained under an approved aircraft inspection program. 

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to PenAir. 
 2

Our Decision 

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 10107, as 

amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. 

Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. §§ 40113 and 44701, which the FAA 

Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition, subject to the following conditions 

and limitations. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. All ATC transponder tests and inspections and all altimeter reporting equipment 

tests and inspections must be conducted under PenAir’s part 121 continuous 

airworthiness maintenance program. 

2. All tests and inspections must be recorded in the aircraft’s maintenance log by the 

person performing each inspection and test. This entry must identify the person, the 

date, and this exemption number. 

3. An appropriate record of these tests and inspections also must be kept in PenAir’s 

maintenance recording system for part 121 and part 135. 

The Effect of Our Decision 

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 10107, as amended, to 

July 31, 2014, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

All conditions and limitations of Exemption No. 10107, as amended, remain the same. This 

letter must be attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 10107. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

John W. McGraw 

Acting Director, Flight Standards 

 Service
From: Geri Madden

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Contraceptive Regulations

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 11:03:00 PM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you to

accept the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to coverage of

preventive care under the new health care law, and to reject any exemptions for

“religious employers.” These preventive services are a critical element of the new

law and would provide countless women better access to necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women

access to contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all

contraceptive services, are pushing the government to make exemptions even larger.

Indeed, some groups are pushing for the exemption to apply to religiously-run

health providers, so hospitals with religious affiliations would be exempt from the

coverage requirement, even though they employ people of all faiths and ideologies.

If granted, this larger exemption would deny access to thousands of women just

because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting

IOM’s recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption

provisions.

Geri Madden
Exhibit 23.1




CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




Trio-Tech International


Van Nuys, California


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 No. 333-38082, Form S-8 No. 333-40102 and Form S-8 No. 333-147817, S-8 No. 333-193515 of Trio-Tech International of our report dated September 28, 2016, relating to the consolidated financial statements which appear in this Form 10-K.







Mazars LLP


PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


AND CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS





/s/Mazars LLP





Singapore


September 28, 2016
From: campbell9453@att.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: recommendation of the Institute of Medicine

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 6:29:21 PM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you to

accept the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to coverage of

preventive care under the new health care law, and to reject any exemptions for

“religious employers.” These preventive services are a critical element of the new law

and would provide countless women better access to necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women access

to contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all contraceptive

services, are pushing the government to make exemptions even larger. Indeed, some

groups are pushing for the exemption to apply to religiously-run health providers, so

hospitals with religious affiliations would be exempt from the coverage requirement,

even though they employ people of all faiths and ideologies. If granted, this larger

exemption would deny access to thousands of women just because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting IOM’s

recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption provisions.

Nancy Campbell

campbell9453@att.net
From: Dennis Henderson

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: I oppose the Definition of Religious Employer in Health Care Rules

Date: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 8:18:50 AM

The current definition of religious employer does not provide true conscience

protection for those committed to preserving life. Health care plans should not be

forced to violate the moral and religious convictions of providers or employees in

order to participate in the health care system. Requiring such an unacceptable

demand threatens both universal access to health care and religious freedom of

conscience.
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            U.S. Central Command
                CENTCOM
        Search
                    Search CENTCOM:
                        Search
                Search CENTCOM:
                    Search
    Home

    ABOUT US
    
        COMMAND PRIORITIES

    LEADERSHIP

    COMPONENT COMMANDS

    HISTORY

    POSTURE STATEMENT

    CENTCOM AOR
    
        CENTCOM COALITION

    OPERATIONS AND EXERCISES
    
        USMTM

    CIVILIAN CASUALTY REPORT

    CONTACT
    
        OPERATIONAL CONTRACT SUPPORT

    COMMUNITY RELATIONS

    THEATRE MEDICAL CLEARANCE

    INNOVATION VENDOR PORTAL

    MILITARY MEMBER INNOVATION PORTAL

    MEDIA
    
        SOCIAL MEDIA

    NEWS ARTICLES

    PRESS RELEASES

    STATEMENTS

    IMAGERY

    VIDEOS

    TRANSCRIPTS

    VISITORS AND PERSONNEL
    
        FAMILY CENTER

    FAMILY READINESS

    CENTCOM WEBMAIL

    SOCIAL MEDIA SECURITY

    ACCOUNTABILITY

    EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

    USCENTCOM UNCLASSIFIED REGULATIONS

    FOIA LIBRARY

    INNOVATION OASIS

    WELCOME GUIDE  Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesCommunity RelationsOtherPreviousCommanders
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (2.66 MB)
 
 JOEP JAF New Jersey National Guard Task Force Spartan interoperability Soldiers Army Guard ceremony Jordan USARCENT National Guard Army National Guard ARCENT coalition ASG-J 102 CAV Jordan Border Guard Force JTC-J Joint Operational Engagement Program
 Photo Gallery
 About UsCommand PrioritiesLeadershipComponent
   CommandsHistoryPosture Statement
   Area of
   ResponsibilityCENTCOM Coalition
   Operations And
   ExercisesOperation Inherent
   ResolveResolute Support
   MediaSocial MediaNews ArticlesPress ReleasesVideo And Imagery
   Visitors And
   PersonnelFamily ReadinessCENTCOM WebmailSocial MediaSecurityAccountabilityEmergency
   Preparedness
   ContactCommunity Relations
                    Stay Connected
                
                Privacy & Security  Inspector General  FOIA  Privacy Act
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 24

- 1010

___________ IN RE: RAJ K. PATEL,

Petitioner

____________________________________ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (Related to D. Del. No

. 1 : 23

- cv - 00797 )

____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Fed . R. App. P. 21

on January 18, 2024
Before: BIBAS, MATEY, and CHUNG , Circuit Judges

(Opinion f

iled : February 2, 2024 )

____________________________________2 ___________ OPINION *

___________ PER CURIAM Pro se petitioner Raj K. Patel seek s a writ of mandamus. Because Patel has not demonstrated that he is entitled to such relief, we will deny his petition.In July 2023, Patel filed a complaint in the District Court bringing claims against Alphabet Inc. and Google LLC. On January 4, 2024, the District Court dismissed his case after screening it pursuant t o 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) , without leave to amend. That same day, Patel filed a mandamus petition in this Court, requesting that we order the Clerk of Court for the District of Delaware to enter a default judgment in his case. He repeatedly requeste d a default judgment from the District Court before his case was dismissed and claims that the Clerk of Court for the District of Delaware should have entered a default judgment without needing the District Court’s approval. Patel also requests that we re verse and vacate the District Court’s decision dismissing his case. Patel has since filed an appeal of the District Court’s decision. A writ of mandamus is a “drastic remedy” that may be granted “only in extraordinary circumstances in response to an act amounting to a judicial usurpation of power.” In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig. , 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). “Before a writ of mandamus may issue, a party must establish that (1) no other adequate

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full C ourt and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.3

means [exist] to attain the r elief he desires, (2) the party’s right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable, and (3) the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.” Hollingsworth v. Perry , 558 U.S. 183, 190 (2010) (per curiam) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Because Patel may raise on appeal any issueswith the District Court’s adjudication of his requests for a default judgment or its dismissal of his case, mandamus relief is not appropriate here. See In re Kensington Int’l Ltd

. , 353 F.3d 211, 219 (3d Cir. 2003) (“If, in effect, an appeal will lie, mandamus will not.”); Madden v. Myers , 102 F.3d 74, 77 (3d Cir. 1996) ( explaining that mandamus is not a substitute for an appeal)

. Accordingly , we will deny Patel’s petition. 1

1 In light of our disposition, Patel’s pending motion is denied.
From: Rick Goldsmith

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: No Exceptions to Women"s Preventive Care and Contraception

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 12:22:29 PM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you to

accept the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as they pertain to coverage

of preventive care under the new health care law, and to reject any exemptions for

"religious employers." These preventive services are a critical element of the new

law and would provide countless women better access to necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that "religious refusal" exemptions unjustly deny women

access to contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all

contraceptive services, are pushing the government to make exemptions even larger.

Indeed, some groups are pushing for the exemption to apply to religiously-run

health providers, so hospitals with religious affiliations would be exempt from the

coverage requirement, even though they employ people of all faiths and ideologies.

If granted, this larger exemption would deny access to thousands of women just

because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure all women have access to quality preventive care by accepting

IOM's recommendations and rejecting the religiously charged proposed religious

refusal exemption provisions.

These exemptions reward those promoting political and religious agendas at the

expense of women's rights and reveals a shocking disregard for women's health.

Accepting these exceptions undermines the original premise for the proposed

recommendations and implicitly allows the argument that issues surrounding

women's health are negotiable.

Please do not allow these exceptions. They are wrong medically. They are wrong

morally. They are wrong.
From: Wilma Ralls

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: The Institute of Medicine"s recommendation for Preventive Care under the new health care law

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 8:44:43 PM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you to

accept the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to coverage of

preventive care under the new health care law, and to reject any exemptions for

“religious employers.” These preventive services are a critical element of the new law

and would provide countless women better access to necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women access

to contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all contraceptive

services, are pushing the government to make exemptions even larger. Indeed, some

groups are pushing for the exemption to apply to religiously-run health providers, so

hospitals with religious affiliations would be exempt from the coverage requirement,

even though they employ people of all faiths and ideologies. If granted, this larger

exemption would deny access to thousands of women just because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting IOM’s

recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption provisions.
From: Kay Pils & Talbot

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Health Care Reform

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 6:34:28 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

Preventative health care for ALL women, including contraception,

should be included in any new health care reform laws, apart from any

religious interpretations. Not to do so would be very short-sighted

indeed, ultimately expensive, and unfair to all of us.

Sincerely,

James Talbot and Kay Pils

Austin TX

512 442 7613
From: Mark Starosciak

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Friday, August 05, 2011 11:41:21 PM

To Whom it May Concern,

I object in the strongest of terms to mandating birth control with no co-pays under

the Affordable Care Act.

Birth control is already widely available to all women, subsidized largely by

taxpayers. Demanding that we further subsidize other people's birth control by

increasing our insurance premiums in these days when families are struggling just to

make ends meet is an outrage. 

The mandate violates my conscience and that of millions of Americans who oppose

birth control on moral and religious grounds. 

It is undisputed that one of the operations of contraceptives is to render the

endometrium hostile to implantation, so that if fertilization occurs, the newly

conceived child may be lost to an early abortion. I also strongly object to the

inclusion of free sterilization as well as abortifacient pills like ella, which can work

weeks after a person's biological beginning to cause an abortion.

And what of Catholic employers and others who oppose birth control, but are now

going to be forced to participate in these plans and/or offer it to their employees?

This flies in the face of the conscience protections that Americans have historically

enjoyed.

The conscience provisions attached to the rule are so narrowly crafted that they

would appear to force Catholic institutions to make free birth control and sterilization

available in health plans, or cease hiring and providing services to non-Catholics. 

It is incomprehensible that such a mandate is being forced upon the people of the

United States.

It is no secret that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion chain in America, is

behind this mandate, and will reap huge financial benefits from it at a time when

citizens in the United States are working on both the state and federal levels to

defund the abortion giant. 

The majority of Americans are pro-life and we do not want our tax dollars and

insurance premiums supporting the nation's largest abortion chain.

It is imperative that you give credence to my personal objection along with those of

millions of other Americans who do not want to be forced to pay for and provide

medication, devices, and procedures that do not treat or prevent any disease or

illness, but distort and render inoperable a healthy reproductive system. This rule is

unjust, untenable, and un-American--and it should be stricken.

Sincerely,

Mark Starosciak
Denver, Colorado
From: maureen wheeler

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Women should have access to quality preventive care

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 10:30:38 PM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you to

accept the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to coverage of

preventive care under the new health care law, and to reject any exemptions for

“religious employers.” These preventive services are a critical element of the new law

and would provide countless women better access to necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women access

to contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all contraceptive

services, are pushing the government to make exemptions even larger. Indeed, some

groups are pushing for the exemption to apply to religiously-run health providers, so

hospitals with religious affiliations would be exempt from the coverage requirement,

even though they employ people of all faiths and ideologies. If granted, this larger

exemption would deny access to thousands of women just because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting IOM’s

recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption provisions.
From: Tiffany Shockley

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Thank you for supporting birth control access for all women

Date: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 3:26:40 PM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

I commend the Department of Health & Human Services' landmark decision requiring health insurers to

cover the full cost of contraception, with no co-pay, beginning in August 2012.

This policy places a much-needed importance on women's health that is too-often not a priority in

health care policy. Birth control is a critical part of preventive care, and making contraception available

to all women, regardless of their insurance or ability to pay for it, will significantly reduce long-term

health care costs associated with unplanned pregnancies.

Thank you for prioritizing women's basic health care needs.

Sincerely,

Tiffany Shockley

219 N Walnut Avenue

Magnolia, NJ 08049