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.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SEITARO KANAMARU,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-72944

Agency No. A088-894-406

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 17, 2012** 

Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

Seitaro Kanamaru, native and citizen of Japan, petitions pro se for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 

FILED

APR 23 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-72944

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence

the agency’s factual findings, and we review de novo constitutional claims and

questions of law. Khan v. Holder, 584 F. 3d 773, 776 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny

the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that any harm Kanamaru

alleged did not occur on account of a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias,

502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992); see also Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740

(9th Cir. 2009) (“[t]he Real ID Act requires that a protected ground represent ‘one

central reason’ for an asylum applicant's persecution”). Accordingly, Kanamaru’s

asylum and withholding of removal claim fails. See Ochoa v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d

1166, 1172 (9th Cir. 2005).

The record also supports the agency’s denial of Kanamaru’s CAT claim,

because he failed to show a likelihood of torture at the instigation of, or with the

acquiescence of the Japanese government. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066,

1073 (9th Cir. 2008). 

Finally, we reject Kanamaru’s various due process claims. See Lata v. INS,

204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice for a petitioner

to prevail on a due process claim). We also reject his constitutional challenges.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 176 (Thursday, September 11, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 47803]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-24088]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. TM98-1-114-000]


Mobile Bay Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed Change in FERC 
Gas Tariff

September 5, 1997.
    Take notice that on September 2, 1997, Mobile Bay Pipeline Company 
(Mobile Bay) tendered for filing in its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised 
Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheet to be effective October 1, 
1997:

Sixth Revised Sheet No. 4

    Mobile Bay Pipeline states that the above listed tariff sheet is 
being filed to reflect the increase in the Annual Charge Adjustment 
(ACA) reflected in Mobile Bay's FERC Gas Tariff.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's 
Regulations. All such motions or protest must be filed as provided in 
Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining appropriate action to be 
taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-24088 Filed 9-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

 No. 07-6087 

FREDDY C. PEREZ,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DOUGLAS VEENEY, Sgt. @ Polk Youth Institution,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,

District Judge. (5:04-ct-00911-BO)

Submitted: May 31, 2007 Decided: June 7, 2007

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Freddy C. Perez, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth F. Parsons, North

Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Freddy C. Perez appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Perez v.

Veeney, No. 5:04-ct-00911-BO (E.D.N.C. Jan. 3, 2007). 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
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 17

- 00039

- CR

R OSA M ARIA O RTEGA

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from

Criminal District Court No. 3

o f Tarrant County (1434155D)

November 2 1 , 2018

Opinion by Justice Pittman

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s judgment s . It is ordered that the judgment s of the

trial court are affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _ /s/ Mark T. Pittman

_________________ Justice Mark T. Pittman
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 176 (Thursday, September 11, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 47869]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-24131]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE


Notice of Meeting of the Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and 
Negotiations

AGENCY: Office of the United States Trade Representative.

ACTION: Notice that the September 25, 1997, meeting of the Advisory 
Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations will be held from 10 a.m. 
to 2 p.m. The meeting will be closed to the public from 10 a.m. to 1:30 
p.m. and open to the public from 1:30 p.m. to 2 p.m.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations will 
hold a meeting on September 25, 1997 from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. The meeting 
will be closed to the public from 10 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. The meeting will 
include a review and discussion of current issues which influence U.S. 
trade policy. Pursuant to Section 2155(f)(2) of Title 19 of the United 
States Code, I have determined that this meeting will be concerned with 
matters the disclosure of which would seriously compromise the 
development by the United States Government of trade policy, 
priorities, negotiating objectives or bargaining positions with respect 
to the operation of any trade agreement and other matters arising in 
connection with the development, implementation and administration of 
the trade policy of the United States. The meeting will be open to the 
public and press from 1:30 p.m. to 2 p.m. when trade policy issues will 
be discussed. Attendance during this part of the meeting is for 
observation only. Individuals who are not members of the committee will 
not be invited to comment.

DATES: The meeting is scheduled for September 25, 1997, unless 
otherwise notified.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Carlton Hotel in the 
Chandelier Room, located at 16th and K Streets, Washington, DC, unless 
otherwise notified.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Bill Daley, Office of the United States Trade Representative, (202) 
395-6120.
Charlene Barshefsky,
United States Trade Representative.
[FR Doc. 97-24131 Filed 9-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3190-01-M
Hobe Sound

National Wildlife Refuge

Hobe Sound

National Wildlife Refuge

Photo taken by Margo StahlUSFWS Photo

Photo taken by Margo StahlUSFWS Photo

Hobe Sound National Wildlife Refuge

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

ded by

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Comprehensive Conservation Plan Comprehensive Conservation Plan

y

Scuba Adventures
ance for

ategies

sh and

ns detail

bove

ervice

e plans

ational

uisition.
# Restoration Advisory Board discusses latest cleanup results

/ Published Oct. 23, 2018
Richmond, Va., 
Defense Logistics Agency Installation Operations Richmond personnel, community members, and Restoration Advisory Board members held their quarterly meeting Oct. 15 at the Bensley Community Center in Chesterfield County, Virginia, to discuss current remediation operations on Defense Supply Center Richmond.

The RAB is comprised of members from the community, DLA, the Environmental Protection Agency, Chesterfield County Environmental Engineering and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. “We consider what goes on within our environmental program to be an open book,” said Jimmy Parrish, chief of the installation’s Environmental Management Division.“We formed the RAB in 2001 to allow us to update our neighbors and stakeholders regarding our challenges and the progress being made within our restoration program.” The board’s current work focuses on groundwater affected by several sites on the installation, including the open storage area, the former landfill area and the National Guard equipment maintenance area. The board has been actively monitoring water quality at these sites while the installation has implemented processes to ensure groundwater is protected from contaminants. 

Operable Unit 8, the site of a former acid neutralization pit operation located adjacent to Building 65, was the focus of the Oct. 15 meeting. Environmental contractor Arcadis, which leads the remediation process, installed equipment for a groundwater recirculation project that allows contaminated water to flow into collection wells, where it is extracted and treated with activated carbon to remove contaminants.This clean water is then injected back into the ground to flush additional contaminants out as the system cycles through.This extraction-injection process is continually repeated.

The site is monitored for various chlorinated solvents. Tetrachloroethylene, or PCE, is a manufactured chemical used in metal degreasing. Trichloroethylene, or TCE, is primarily used as a cleaning solvent for metal parts. 1, 2-dichloroethylene and vinyl chloride are by-products generated from the breakdown of the first two chemicals.

“The recent progress seen from groundwater recirculation has been outstanding,” said David Hufford, environmental engineer with the installation operations’ Environmental Management Division. “The previous area of solvent contamination has shrunk by approximately 70 percent in area size from 2014.”

The RAB’s next meeting is scheduled for Jan. 14, 2019, and is open to the public. The RAB is co-chaired by Hufford and community representative Janet Moe, a nearby neighbor. RAB membership is open to the public and applicants are selected based on their representation of diverse interests in the local community. Preference is given to applicants who are most affected by the restoration process. 

For more information on RAB, contact David Hufford at 804-279-6207.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1558 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1558

To amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to protect family members 
of filers from disclosing sensitive information in a public filing and 
           extend the public filing requirement for 5 years.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 29, 2005

 Ms. Collins (for herself and Mr. Lieberman) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 
                   Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to protect family members 
of filers from disclosing sensitive information in a public filing and 
           extend the public filing requirement for 5 years.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PROTECTION OF FAMILY MEMBERS.

    Section 105(b)(3) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. 
App.) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``or a family member 
        of that individual'' after ``that individual''; and
            (2) in subparagraph (B)(i), by inserting ``or a family 
        member of that individual'' after ``the report''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF PUBLIC FILING REQUIREMENT.

    Section 105(b)(3)(E) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5 
U.S.C. App.) is amended by striking ``2005'' each place it appears and 
inserting ``2010''.
                                 <all>
```
#### EMMCO INSURANCE COMPANY v. H. D. BOUDROAUX.

No. 49796.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Dec. 21, 1977.

King & Spencer, Robert W. King, Jackson, for appellant.

George D. Runnels, Magee, for appellee.

Before INZER, P. J., and WALKER and BROOM, JJ.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Smith County; George B. Grubbs, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

PATTERSON, C. J., SMITH, P. J., and ROBERTSON, SUGG, LEE and BOWLING, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 176 (Thursday, September 11, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47762-47763]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-24004]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 96-196, RM-8878]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Georgetown and Garden City, SC

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Commission, at the request of Coastline Communications of 
Carolina, Inc., reallots Channel 249C1 from Georgetown to Garden City, 
South Carolina, and modifies Station WWXM(FM)'s license accordingly. 
See 61 FR 51075, September 30, 1996. Channel 249C1 can be allotted to 
Garden City in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance 
separation requirements with a site restriction of 3 kilometers (1.9 
miles)

[[Page 47763]]

northwest at petitioner's licensed site. The coordinates for Channel 
249C1 at Garden City are North Latitude 33-35-27 and West Longitude 79-
02-53. With this action, this proceeding is terminated.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 20 , 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon P. McDonald, Mass Media Bureau, 
(202) 418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Report and Order, MM Docket No. 96-196, adopted August 27, 1997, and 
released September 5, 1997. The full text of this Commission decision 
is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW., Washington, 
DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the 
Commission's copy contractors, International Transcription Service, 
Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

    Part 73 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended 
as follows:

PART 73--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for Part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Sections 303, 48 Stat., as amended, 1082; 47 U.S.C. 
154, as amended.


Sec. 73.202  [Amended]

    2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under South 
Carolina, is amended by removing Channel 249C1 from Georgetown and 
adding Garden City, Channel 249C1.

Federal Communications Commission.

John A. Karousos,

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 97-24004 Filed 9-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
EXHIBIT 32.2

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 Annual Report of LeCroy Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Sean B. OConnor, 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:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: September 13, 2007



/S/    SEAN B.
OCONNORSean B. OConnorChief Financial Officer


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



108
**Exhibit23.1**

**CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

To the Board of Directors

  of SITEL Corporation:

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 033-99434,333-19069, 333-30635, 333-44781, and 333-78241) on Form S-8 of SITELCorporation of our reports dated September    , 2006, withrespect to the consolidated balance sheets of SITEL Corporation andsubsidiaries (the Company) as of December 31, 2005 and 2004, and the relatedconsolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows foreach of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2005; and ourreport dated September 13, 2006, with respect to  management’s assessment of the effectivenessof internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005, and theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31,2005, which reports appear in the December 31, 2005 Annual Report on Form 10-Kof SITEL Corporation.

As discussed in note 2 tothe consolidated financial statements, SITEL Corporation has restated theconsolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2004, and for the yearsended December 31, 2004 and 2003.

Our report datedSeptember 13, 2006 on management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control overfinancial reporting as of December 31, 2005, expresses our opinion that theCompany did not maintain effective internal control over financial reporting asof December 31, 2005, because of the effect of material weaknesses on theachievement of the objectives of the control criteria and contains anexplanatory paragraph that states the Company had ineffective regionalmanagement oversight of the Latin America business units and ineffectivefinancial reporting and review processes in the Brazil subsidiary.
| /s/   KPMG LLP |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|
|                          |
| **KPMG LLP**                  |
|                          |
|                          |
| Omaha, Nebraska               |
| September 13, 2006            |

 

----

**Exhibit 23.2**

**CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**

We hereby consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Numbers033-99434, 333-19069, 333-30635, 333-44781 and 333-78241) of SITEL Corporationof our report dated August 21, 2006 relating to the financial statements of  Grupo Sitel de México. S.A. de C.V. andsubsidiary, which appears in the December 31, 2005 Annual Report on Form 10-Kof SITEL Corporation.
| **PricewaterhouseCoopers, S.C.**            |
|---------------------------------------------|
| ** **                                  |
| /s/ José Carlos del Castillo Díaz |   |
|                                        |
| México City, México               |
| August 21, 2006                             |

 

1

----
#### Dr. Joan MEMBERY a/k/a Joan H. Membery, a/k/a Joan Hathaway Membery, Appellant, v. Hubert HAMMAC, Builder, Appellee.

No. 77-1956.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 18, 1978.

Cunningham & Weinstein, Miami, for appellant.

John C. Dick, Coral Gables, for appellee.

Before HAVERFIELD, C. J., PEARSON, J., and CRAWFORD, GRADY L. (Ret.), Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Joan H. Membery, is the owner and the defendant in the trial court in a mechanic’s lien foreclosure action. The contract between the parties was upon a cost-plus basis. One of the costs alleged is labor in the amount of $15,940.50. Appellant noticed the taking of deposition and issued a subpoena duces tecum to the claimant plaintiff’s bookkeeper requesting payroll tax returns in order to controvert the amount of labor involved. The trial judge granted the plaintiff appellee’s motion to quash the subpoena and denied appellant’s motion to compel production of the records.

Appellee offers no reason to show that the records were not proper for discovery, but urges that failure to appeal a prior interlocutory order denying discovery of certain of the documents was res judicata.

The order appealed is reversed upon authority of Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.280(b)(1). Cf. *Fryd Construction Corporation v. Freeman,*191 So.2d 487 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966).

Reversed.