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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROLAND HAKOBYAN,

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 18-70803 

Agency No. A206-269-422 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 12, 2022**

Pasadena, California

Before: IKUTA and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and DANIELS,*** District Judge.

Roland Hakobyan, a citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of a decision 

by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal of an 

* 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).

*** The Honorable George B. Daniels, United States District Judge for the 

Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

FILED

MAY 16 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of relief from removal. We have jurisdiction 

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. 

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. See 

Iman v. Barr, 972 F.3d 1058, 1064 (9th Cir. 2020). Hakobyan was inconsistent in 

his statements as to the nature and frequency of the assaults he was subjected to in 

Armenia and belatedly disclosed events significant to his claim of persecution. See 

Mukulumbutu v. Barr, 977 F.3d 924, 926–27 (9th Cir. 2020) (holding that nontrivial inconsistencies in testimony and omissions of compelling facts are probative 

of a petitioner’s credibility). Hakobyan’s “inability to consistently describe the 

underlying events that gave rise to his fear was an important factor that could be 

relied upon by the IJ in making an adverse credibility determination.” Shrestha v. 

Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1047 (9th Cir. 2010). Additionally, the agency reasonably 

relied on Hakobyan’s inconsistent statements as to whether he had children and 

describing his military experience. These inconsistencies are not so trivial as to 

have no bearing on his credibility. See Li v. Garland, 13 F.4th 954, 961 (9th Cir. 

2021) (noting that “even minor inconsistencies may have a legitimate impact on a 

petitioner’s credibility”). 

Hakobyan’s explanations for the numerous inconsistencies and omissions do 

not compel a contrary result. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 

2011). 
3 

Without credible testimony or corroborating evidence, Hakobyan does not 

meet his burden of proof on his claims for asylum and withholding of removal. 

See Mukulumbutu, 977 F.3d at 927.

1

 Therefore, we do not consider the IJ’s

alternate determination that Hakobyan did not establish that it would be 

unreasonable for him to relocate within Armenia.

PETITION DENIED.

1 Hakobyan does not specifically and distinctly raise the denial of his claim for 

relief under the Convention Against Torture in his Opening Brief and has 

accordingly forfeited that claim. See Castro-Perez v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1069, 

1072 (9th Cir. 2005).
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D2022-1181

LT Case No. 2019-CA-1937

_____________________________

CHRISTOPHER A. CROUCH, JR.,

and LISA CROUCH

Appellants,

v.

NEWREZ, LLC d/b/a, Shellpoint 

Mortgage Servicing,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Marion County.

Victor J. Musleh, Judge.

Blake J. Fredrickson, of Fredrickson Law Group, P.A., Tampa, for

Appellants.

Michael T. Ruff, of Padgett Law Group, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

May 21, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

MAKAR, KILBANE, and PRATT, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
<PAGE>   1




                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

         STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PRIMARY EARNINGS PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                        THREE              NINE
                                        MONTHS            MONTHS
                                         ENDED             ENDED
                                        9/30/97           9/30/97
                                      ----------         ----------
<S>                                    <C>               <C>      
Weighted average shares
  outstanding                          10,126,000        9,979,000

Weighted average common stock
  equivalents outstanding:
        Common stock
        Options                           637,000
        Warrants                          167,000
                                      -----------
        Total                             803,000

Assumed treasury stock
  repurchases:
        Common stock
        Options                           324,000
        Warrants                           42,000
                                      -----------
        Total                             366,000

Net weighted average common stock     -----------
  equivalents                             437,000



Total primary weighted average
  common stock and common stock       -----------
  equivalents outstanding              10,563,000
                                      -----------
</TABLE>


Note: The effect of common stock equivalents was excluded from the calculation
for the nine months ended September 30, 1997 due to the net loss recorded in
each such period.



                                       19
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-40136

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ALBERT T. HINOJOSA,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-92-26-1

- - - - - - - - - -

March 2, 1998

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Court-appointed counsel for Albert T. Hinojosa has filed a

brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 

Our independent review of the brief, Hinojosa’s response, and the

record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel is

excused from further responsibilities herein and the APPEAL IS

DISMISSED.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

February 27, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

129626 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 129626 

 COA: 253327 

Washtenaw CC: 76-010489-FY 

EDWARD HILL,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 12, 2005 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant 

has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

s0221 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

February 27, 2006 

Clerk
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7808

STUART SANDERS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; RONALD

ANGELONE, Director; MR. CUMMINS, Counselor;

MR. WRIGHT, Warden of Work Release Unit,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.

(CA-94-796)

Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 26, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stuart Sanders, Appellant Pro Se. Lance Bradford Leggitt, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Sanders v. Director, Dep't of Corrections, No. CA-94-796

(E.D. Va. Oct. 31, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D20-1524

_____________________________

GARY ELLISON ADLER,

Appellant,

v.

JOSEPH POLETTO,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Katie L. Dearing, Judge.

September 2, 2021

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

KELSEY, NORDBY, and LONG, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Michael R. D’Lugo of Wicker, Smith, O’Hara, McCoy & Ford, P.A., 

Orlando, for Appellant.

Theresa Carli Pontieri of Carli Law, PLLC, Jacksonville, for 

Appellee.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-3709

___________

Anna Mae Skibinski, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * District of Minnesota.

*

Kathleen Sebelius, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: July 27, 2012

 Filed: July 27, 2012

___________

Before BYE, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Anna Mae Skibinski appeals the district court’s dismissal of her complaint 1

under 42 U.S.C. § 1395w-22(g)(5). Upon careful consideration of Skibinski’s

arguments for reversal, we find no basis for overturning the district court’s

determinationsthat Skibinski lacked standing to seek some ofthe relief she identified,

see Jones v. Gale, 470 F.3d 1261, 1265 (8th Cir. 2006) (reviewing de novo district

court’s determination asto standing); and that the sole basis for Skibinski’s challenge

to the decision to terminate coverage for post-hospital extended care services for her

The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United StatesDistrict Judge for the District 1

of Minnesota.
now-deceased mother was not cognizable in this action, see McAdams v. McCord,

584 F.3d 1111, 1113 (8th Cir. 2009) (de novo review of dismissal for failure to state

claim). The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________

-2-
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER VACATING ORDER

TO SHOW CAUSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

MIKE KREIDLER, 

Plaintiff,

v.

DANNY L. PIXLER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-0697RSL

ORDER VACATING ORDER

TO SHOW CAUSE

This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. On November 27, 2006,

defendants filed a supplemental memorandum that, taken as a whole, exceeded 50 pages

in length. (Dkt. #47). On December 1, 2006, the Court issued an order to show cause

why they should not be sanctioned for failing to provide a chambers’ copy as required by

the Court’s Local Rules and prior instructions. The order to show cause (Dkt. #48) is

now vacated in light of the receipt of the courtesy copy and defense counsel’s response. 

DATED this 5th day of December, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00697-RSL Document 50 Filed 12/05/06 Page 1 of 1
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

RODOLFO VELAZQUEZ aka

JAVIER ALONSO ANGULO MONZON,

Petitioner, 

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent..

CASE NO. C06-5284RJB

 CR02-5823RJB

 MINUTE ORDER RE: 

 Evidentiary Hearing and

 Prehearing Schedule

NOW, on this 22nd day of November, 2006, the Court directs the Clerk to enter the

following Minute Order:

Pursuant to the Court’s Order Granting Evidentiary Hearing (Dkt #14), the

Evidentiary Hearing is scheduled for January 26, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. The prehearing

schedule is as follows: 

The parties will confer regarding exchange of discovery and attempt to

resolve any disputed matters by 11/27/06;

Discovery motions, if any, will be filed no later than 11/30/06;

Production of any disputed discovery, if ordered by the Court, will be

provided no later 12/4/06;

Motions regarding presentation of evidence and/or witness testimony shall

be filed by 1/5/07;

Motions in limine shall be filed no later than 1/19/07; 

Exhibit designation/exhibit list filed by 1/19/07; and

Prehearing briefs/memorandums to be filed no later than 1/19/07.

The foregoing Minute Order entered by Dara Kaleel, by direction of the Honorable

ROBERT J. BRYAN, United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05284-RJB Document 16 Filed 11/22/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case 3:06-cv-05284-RJB Document 16 Filed 11/22/06 Page 2 of 2
From: quovadis.lifecoach@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:26:06 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients.

Since mandating that all health insurance plan must pay for all contraceptives, including some chemicals

that can cause abortion, I ask you to expand conscience protections for any organizations that provide

individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I strongly oppose the

government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and devices that I

oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Robert Conkling

Woodbridge, VA 22192
From: psalm33_4@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:49:53 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Amy Anzures

Warrenton, VA 20187
No. 68532.

protests 59/8776, etc. (Boston).

#### Whittemore Associates, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of plastic paperweights similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 67488, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 TAXATION OF COSTS -- 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

PROWLER LLC, an Alaska Limited Liability

Company, & CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT

LLOYDS OF LONDON, SUBSCRIBING TO

POLICY OF INSURANCE NUMBER MC 04

ADE 6 (MC 04 AEFQ),

Plaintiffs,

v.

YORK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, a

Delaware Corporation,

Defendant.

Case No. C06-660JLR

TAXATION OF COSTS

Costs in the above-entitled cause are hereby taxed against DEFENDANT YORK

INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION and on behalf of PLAINTIFFS in the unopposed amount of

$12,256.27.

Entered this 17th day of SEPTEMBER , 2007 .

A

Bruce Rifkin

Clerk, U.S. District Court

Case 2:06-cv-00660-JLR Document 49 Filed 09/17/07 Page 1 of 1
No. 68517.

protest 60/22952 (New York).

#### Panation Trade Co. and W. J. Byrnes & Co. of NY, Inc. *v.*United States,

*338Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of rosary bracelets the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 66761, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
III

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 102

Designating August 15, 1997 as ‘‘Indian Independence Day: A National

Day of Celebration of Indian and American Democracy’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 18 (legislative day, JUNE 17), 1997

Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. DEWINE, Mr. REED, Ms.

LANDRIEU, Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN, Mr. INOUYE, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr.

LEVIN, Mr. WELLSTONE, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. HATCH,

Mr. MACK, Mr. KERRY, Mr. ABRAHAM, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. BOND, and Mr. SMITH of Oregon) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JULY 31, 1997

Committee discharged; considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

Designating August 15, 1997 as ‘‘Indian Independence Day:

A National Day of Celebration of Indian and American

Democracy’’.

Whereas India is the world’s largest democracy and shares

with the United States the system in which the supreme

power to govern is invested in the people;

Whereas the people of India drew upon the values of the rule

of law in creating a representative democracy;

Whereas India and the United States share a common bond

of being former British colonies;
2

SRES 102 ATS

Whereas India’s independence was achieved pledged to the

principles of fairness, dignity, peace, and democracy;

Whereas these and other ideals have forged a close bond between our two nations and their peoples;

Whereas August 15, 1997 marks the 50th anniversary of the

end of the struggle which freed the Indian people from

British colonial rule; and

Whereas it is proper and desirable to celebrate with the Indian people, and to reaffirm the democratic principles on

which our two great nations were born: Now, therefore,

be it

1 Resolved, That August 15, 1997 is designated as ‘‘In2 dian Independence Day: A National Day of Celebration

3 of Indian and American Democracy’’. The President is re4 quested to issue a proclamation calling upon the people

5 of the United States to observe the day with appropriate

6 ceremonies and activities.

Æ
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

MINUTE ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

HASELTON, et al.,

Plaintiff,

v.

JUMP-LINE, et al.,

Defendant.

No. C06-256

MINUTE ORDER

The following minute order is made by the direction of the court, the Honorable Marsha J.

Pechman:

The parties have not complied with the order directing that a joint status report be filed by

November 13, 2006. The time for filing the report is hereby extended to ten days from the date of

this order. If the report is not filed by that time, sanctions may be ordered. Sanctions may include

dismissal of the action without prejudice.

Filed this 9th day of January, 2007.

BRUCE RIFKIN, Clerk

By: /s Mary Duett

Deputy Clerk

Case 2:06-cv-00256-MJP Document 29 Filed 01/09/07 Page 1 of 1
AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case r

United States District Court

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

JACQUELINE SATHER

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

v.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART,

Commissioner of Social Security

CASE NUMBER: C06-5322FDB

 Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried

and the jury has rendered its verdict.

 XX Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been

tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

 IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED

That Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees in the amount of $5,193.72 pursuant to the Equal Access

to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, and reimbursement of costs in the amount $32.92 pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1920.

 February 28, 2007 BRUCE RIFKIN 

Date Clerk

 s/Caroline M. Gonzalez 

Deputy Clerk

Case 3:06-cv-05322-FDB Document 30 Filed 02/28/07 Page 1 of 1