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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EDGAR AYALA BRIBIESCA, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting

Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 15-71016 

Agency No. A200-691-635 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 27, 2018**

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. 

Edgar Ayala Bribiesca, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review 

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an 

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of 

removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have 

 

* 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

DEC 3 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-71016 

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the BIA’s 

factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). 

We deny the petition for review.

Among other reasons, the BIA denied asylum as a matter of discretion. 

Bribiesca does not raise any arguments challenging this dispositive determination. 

See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996). Thus, we deny 

the petition as to Bribiesca’s asylum claim. 

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Bribiesca failed 

to establish he was or would be persecuted on account of a protected ground. See

INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an applicant “must provide some

evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”) (emphasis in original); see also 

Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s “desire to be 

free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang 

members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Thus, Bribiesca’s withholding of 

removal claim fails.

Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because 

Bribiesca failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with 

the consent or acquiescence of the government of Mexico. See Delgado-Ortiz v. 

Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (generalized evidence of violence and 

crime in Mexico was not particular to the petitioner and insufficient to establish
3 15-71016 

eligibility for CAT relief).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### J. J. Murphy & Co. et al. *v.*United States

No. 6786.

Entry No. 742184, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, December 29, 1941, etc.

Certified January 6, 1942, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., March 11, 1942, etc.

(Decided January 21, 1947)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn (Hadley S. King*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that Value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importers on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-11-00890-CV

Juan A. Tellez, Appellant

v.

Robin Allen Reid and Crete Carrier Corporation, Appellees

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY, 274TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. C2011-0273B, HONORABLE CHARLES R. RAMSAY, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

PER CURIAM

Juan A. Tellez filed his notice of appeal from the district court’s order granting a noevidence summary judgment in favor of appellees Robin Allen Reid and Crete Carrier Corporation.

However, the order does not reflect the date that it was signed. Cf. Tex. R. Civ. P. 306a(2)(requiring

trial court orders to state date of signing therein). The day and month typed on the order itself are

struck through (“SIGNED this 13th day of September 2011”), and although the order bears a

September 26, 2011 file stamp, that date precedes the trial court’s October 25, 2011 docket entry and

letter to the parties stating that the motion was granted.1

We therefore abate this appeal and remand this cause to the district court to

certify the date that it signed the order granting the no-evidence motion for summary judgment

 The file-stamped date also conflicts with an October 31, 2011 letter between counsel for 1

approval of the form of the order and the November 9, 2011 filing of a motion to enter the order.
in Cause No. C2011-0273B. See id. (providing that “[i]f the date of signing is not recited in the

judgment or order, it may be shown in the record by a certificate of the judge”); see also Flores

v. Flores, No. 13-99-00570-CV, 2001 Tex. App. LEXIS 2443, at *5 n.2 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi

Apr. 12, 2001, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (noting prior abatement and

remand to trial court for certification of date that it signed appealed order). The district court’s

certification shall be filed with this Court as a supplemental clerk’s record no later than

November 19, 2012.

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Pemberton and Rose

Abated

Filed: October 18, 2012

2
## Memo randum

October 30, 2015

To: Rory Mays, Air Division

– Planning Office

From : Laura Yannayon, Air Division

– Permits Office

Subject: Investigation of Approved SIP Contents for Lake, Tuolumne, Mariposa, Plumas and
Sierra Counties , related to minor source permit programs

. Per your request, I have reviewed the SIP submittal and EPA approval history for each of these 5 counties, as they r elate to their minor source permit programs. I reviewed the original copies of SIP submittals provided by the ARB, dated February 22 and June 30, 1972. For each county, I was able to locate copies of minor source permit rules in the June 30 th submittal , an d in some cases I was also able to locate the rules in the February 22 nd submittal as well

. For each county, I reviewed the applicable provisions of 40 CFR 52.220

– Identification of Plan for California, which l ists the submitted rules , by submittal date, that EPA has approved into the
California SIP. For both the February 22 and June 30, 1972 submittals, EPA approved the submitted contents in their entirety. (See 40 CFR 52.220 (b) and (c)(6)). At later dates EPA either disapproved or removed some of the ru les initially approved, with each action being note d in 40 CFR 52.220. Based on the information provided in 40 CFR 52.220, a copy of the California approved SIP as it existed in August 1978, relevant Federal Register notices

, and other historic records, I have determined that the rules submitted for each county that constitute their minimum minor source permit program have never been removed or replaced in the California
SIP.

Accordingly, based on the information I have reviewed

, I am attaching a short na rrative for each county of the SIP history regarding their minor source permit rules, including a copy of the rules which remain approved in the California SIP for each county.
No. 74-5910.

#### Jordan *v.*Colbert, Warden.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 31.1 - Certification of the CEO Pursuant to Section 302 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act


I, Clyde Harrison, the chief executive officer of Rogers International Raw
Materials Fund L.P., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Rogers International
Raw Materials Fund L.P;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: July 28, 2003
      -------------
                                          /s/ Clyde Harrison
                                          ------------------
                                        Chief Executive Officer
No. 96-5869.

#### Bulgier *v.*Department of Justice.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
(Reap. Dec. 8445)

Entry No. 2411-H.

#### R. W. Smith *v.*United States

(Decided June 3, 1955)

*Sharreits, Paley & Carter*for the plaintiff.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Olivee, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted on an agreed set of facts, establishing export value, as defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for appraisement of the steel line pipe covered by the shipment in question and showing that such statutory value for the said merchandise is $170 per metric ton net packed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
```

                                    March 28, 2001

To the Board of Directors and Shareholders
Factual Data Corp.
Loveland, Colorado

We have audited the  consolidated  financial  statements as of December 31, 2000
and for each of the two years in the period ended December 31, 2000, included in
your annual report on Form 10-KSB to the Securities and Exchange  Commission and
have issued our report thereon dated March 28, 2001. Note 2 to such consolidated
financial  statements  contains a description  of your adoption  during the year
ended  December  31, 2000 of a change in  accounting  principle  with respect to
assessing  intangible  assets  using a  discounted  cash flow  approach.  In our
judgment,  such  change  is to  an  alternative  accounting  principle  that  is
preferable under the circumstances.

                                /s/Ehrhardt Keefe Steiner & Hottman PC
                                   Ehrhardt Keefe Steiner & Hottman PC
                                   Denver, Colorado
```
```

[115th Congress Public Law 214]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 132 STAT. 1543]]

Public Law 115-214
115th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
  1900 Corporate Drive in Birmingham, Alabama, as the ``Lance Corporal 
     Thomas E. Rivers, Jr. Post Office Building''. <<NOTE: July 24, 
                         2018 -  [H.R. 4646]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. LANCE CORPORAL THOMAS E. RIVERS, JR. POST OFFICE 
                              BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 1900 Corporate Drive in Birmingham, Alabama, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Lance Corporal Thomas E. Rivers, Jr. Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Lance 
Corporal Thomas E. Rivers, Jr. Post Office Building''.

    Approved July 24, 2018.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 4646:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 164 (2018):
            Mar. 5, considered and passed House.
            June 28, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
#### William TAYLOR and Georgette Taylor v. W. David ROWELL, Bennie L. Matthews, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and Audubon Insurance Company.

No. 98-CC-0896.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 15, 1998.

In re Hertz Corporation;—Defendant(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial wiits; Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court, Div. “D”, No. 408,823; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. CW97 2878.

Granted and remanded to the court of appeal for briefing, argument and opinion.

TRAYLOR, J., not on panel.
#### F. W. Woolworth Co. *v.*United States

No. 6116.

Invoice dated Sonneberg, Germany, October 30, 1939.

Certified November 1, 1939.

Entered at Baltimore, Md., November 28, 1939.

Entry No. 1774/6.

(Decided March 13, 1945)

*Sharretts & Hillis (Edward P. Sharretts*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Daniel I. Auster,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Kincheloe, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisemenfc has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> It is hereby stipulated by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the court, that the facts and circumstances relating to the item of 10 per centum commission in the case listed in the annexed schedule, identified on the invoice with “xx” in green ink and the initials CHR of Examiner Charles H. Ritz, are in all material respects the same as the facts and circumstances relating to the item of 10 per centum commission specified in the invoices relating to glass tree ornaments, novelties, and figures covered by reappraisements 113038-A, 113040-A, and 113468-A of the F. W. Woolwort-h Co. and passed upon *364by the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals in *United, States v. S. S. Kresge Co., B. Shackman & Co., Rice & Co. Corp., Strauss-Echardt Co., Inc., F. W. Woolworth Co.,*26 C. C. P. A. 349, 352, wherein the court held that *“A*purchasing commission, charged for the handling of merchandise, is not a proper part of dutiable value.”

> It is further stipulated and agreed that on the date of exportation of the merchandise involved in the case listed in 'the annexed schedule, identified on the invoices with “xx” in green ink and the initials CHR of Examiner Charles H. Ritz, articles such and similar thereto were freely offered for sale and sold to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country of exportation in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States at the *per se*unit invoice prices, plus *3*4*per centum social assessments for insurance, vacation, and holiday costs, plus packing, as invoiced, and that there was no higher foreign value.

> As to all other items, the appeal is abandoned.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that the record in *United States*v. *S. S. Kresge Co. et al.,*26 C. C. P. A. 349, 352, be incorporated herein and that the said appeal to reappraisement is submitted on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise represented on the invoice by the items marked “xx” in green ink and the initials CHR. of Examiner Charles H. Ritz, and that such values are the *per se*unit invoice prices, plus *3%*per centum social assessments for insurance, vacation, and holiday costs, plus packing, as invoiced.

The appeal having been abandoned insofar as it relates to all other merchandise, to that extent the appeal is hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
33887.

#### RUSSELL et al. v. TOWLES et al.

Undercofler, Presiding Justice.

We granted this interlocutory appeal to consider the question whether DeKalb County is entitled to a jury trial in a zoning case. In *Guhl v. Davis,*242 Ga. 356 (1978), we held that constitutional questions are for the court and *359not a jury. The motion to dismiss is denied.

Argued September 13, 1978

Decided October 4, 1978

Rehearing denied October 24, 1978.

*George P. Dillard, Gail C. Flake,*for appellants.

*Somers & Altenbach, John W. Gibson, Charles E. Jabaley,*for appellees.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
No. 74-862.

#### Krilich *v.*United States.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 42076.

#### Protests 899116-G (A), etc., of Browne Vintners Co. et al. (Los Angeles, etc.).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-30957

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

GERALD CORMIER,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 6:12-CR-344-8

Before DAVIS, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Gerald Cormier has moved for leave 

to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Cormier has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the 

relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s 

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 16, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-30957 Document: 00513080613 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/16/2015
No. 14-30957

2

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is 

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 14-30957 Document: 00513080613 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/16/2015
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Corey Goodman, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the quarterly report on Form
10-Q of Renovis, Inc. for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of Renovis, Inc.



|                    |  |     |  |                        
|------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: May 14, 2004 |  | By: |  | /s/ Corey Goodman      
|                    |  |     |  | Corey Goodman          
|                    |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer



I, John Doyle, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Renovis, Inc. for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Renovis, Inc.



|                    |  |     |  |                        
|------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: May 14, 2004 |  | By: |  | /s/ John Doyle         
|                    |  |     |  | John Doyle             
|                    |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer
No. 54941.

#### J. & H. Baer, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 162952-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of synthetic stones the same in all material respects as; *335those the subject of *S. Nathan & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(37 C. C. P. A. 99, C. A. D. 426), the claim at 10 percent under paragraph 1528 was sustained.
No. D-1790.

#### In re Disbarment of Friedman.

Bruce Michael Friedman, of Los Angeles, Cal., is suspended from the practice of law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.