alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NANCY PATRICIA ROJAS

- GUILLEN,

Petitioner,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 19

- 71702 Agency No. A208

- 681

- 922

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 20, 2021 * *
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges. Nancy Patricia Rojas

- G uillen , a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture

* 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

APR 23 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 71702

(“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales , 453 F.3d 1182, 1184

- 85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the harm Rojas

- Guillen experienced did not rise to the level of persecution. See Duran

Rodriguez v. Barr , 918 F.3d 1025, 10 2 8

- 29 (9th Cir. 2019) ( record did not compel finding that harm rises to the level of persecution where perpetrators took no violent actions against the petitioner or his family beyond threats). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Rojas

- Guillen did not e stablish a well

- founded fear of future persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales , 454 F.3d 1014, 1022 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner failed to present “compelling, objective evidence demonstrating a well

- founded fear of persecution”). We do not address Rojas

- Guillen ’s contentions regarding her credibility, as the IJ found she was credible. Thus, Rojas

- Guillen’s asylum claim fail s
. Because Rojas

- Guillen failed to establish eligibility for asylum, in this case, she did not establish eligibility for withholding of rem oval. See Zehatye , 453 F.3d
at 1190. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Rojas

- Guillen failed to show it is more likely than not she would be tortured by or3 19

- 71702

with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See Aden v. Holder , 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). We lack jurisdiction to consider Rojas

- Guillen’s contention s concerning voluntary departure because she did not raise them to t he agency
. See Barron v. Ashcroft , 358 F.3d 674, 677

- 78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented below). The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate. The motion for a stay of removal (Dock et Entry No. 1) is otherwise denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part

.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

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

(SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18,

UNITED STATES CODE)

In connection with the Annual Report of Rural/Metro Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the
period ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael P. DiMino, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



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



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

Dated: September 8, 2010



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/    MICHAEL P.
DIMINO             
|Michael P. DiMino                    
|President and Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                         AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   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 Torbay Holdings, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Periodic Report"),
I, William Thomas Large, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      1. the Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


Dated:  August 16, 2004                     /s/William Thomas Large
                                            -----------------------------------
                                               William Thomas Large, President,
                                               Chief Executive Officer and Chief
                                               Financial Officer
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

490 

KA 15-01843 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, DEJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND TROUTMAN, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

TERRANCE GIBSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (KIMBERLY F. DUGUAY OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (NANCY GILLIGAN OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Monroe County Court (Christopher S.

Ciaccio, J.), entered October 13, 2015. The order determined that

defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender

Registration Act. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the matter is

remitted to Monroe County Court for further proceedings in accordance

with the following memorandum: On appeal from an order determining

that he is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender

Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq.), defendant contends

that County Court erred in assessing points for his criminal history

based upon a prior juvenile delinquency adjudication. We agree. 

Defendant was assessed 15 points under risk factor 9 for a prior crime

as a juvenile delinquent, and the court, relying on People v Catchings

(56 AD3d 1181, 1182, lv denied 12 NY3d 701), rejected defendant’s

challenge to the assessment of points under risk factor 9. As we

recently held in People v Brown (148 AD3d 1705, ___), however, a

juvenile delinquency adjudication may not be considered a crime for

purposes of assessing points in a SORA determination, and Catchings

should no longer be followed to that extent. Consequently, we

conclude that the court erred in considering defendant’s juvenile

delinquency adjudication in assessing 15 points under risk factor 9. 

Removing the improperly assessed points under risk factor 9

renders defendant a presumptive level two risk. Under the

circumstances of this case, we remit the matter to County Court for

further proceedings to determine whether an upward departure is

warranted (see Brown, 148 AD3d at ___). 

Entered: April 28, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS ACCESS PROGRAM

Application 

No. Project/Facility Name Project Type Federal Land Accessed Applicant County

Fiscal 

Year*

CT-05

Pine Brook Road Access 

Improvements

Roadway Resurfacing & 

Parking Lot

U.S. Fish & Wildlife 

Service - Silvio O. Conte 

National Wildlife Refuge

Town of 

Haddam Middlesex PE 2023 CN 2024

The Programming Decisions Committee (PDC) responsible for the Connecticut Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) has selected its multiyear 

Program of Projects. The projects identified for programming for the Connecticut FLAP are listed below in no particular order and include:

Connecticut Program of Projects for Federal Fiscal Years 2023-2026

* Fiscal Year Programmed/Project Schedule is subject to change

The Connecticut PDC does not have a firm date for the next Call for Projects under the Access Program. Please watch our website for updates in 

your state. https://highways.dot.gov/federal-lands/programs-access

If you have any questions regarding the Call for Projects, please contact Mr. Lewis Grimm, Planning Team Leader, at 703-404-6289 or 

Lewis.Grimm@dot.gov. For questions regarding project agreements and funding, please contact Ms. Jacinda Russell, Access Program Manager, at 

571-434-1543 or Jacinda.Russell@dot.gov.
5G3 Adjusted Heating Test Test Emissions Burn Rate Emissions Emissions Efficiency Length Length Heat Heat Total Grams g/MJ Output g/kg g/h lb/MM CO Purpose Fuel kg/hr g/hr g/hr % Overall HHV (Minutes) (Hours) Input Output of Particulate Dry Fuel (5G3) Btu Output g Certification Doug Fir Crib 0.79 0.34 0.7 83.0 613 10.2 15,720 13,017 3.41 0.03 0.42 0.33 0.06 234 Certification Doug Fir Crib 0.94 0.39 0.8 84.5 550 9.2 18,610 15,729 3.54 0.02 0.41 0.39 0.06 128 Certification Doug Fir Crib 1.26 0.68 1.2 82.0 398 6.6 25,038 20,521 4.48 0.03 0.53 0.68 0.08 174 Certification Doug Fir Crib 1.70 0.52 1.1 80.3 288 4.8 34,360 27,578 2.48 0.02 0.30 0.52 0.04 49 Certification Doug Fir Crib 1.85 0.73 1.4 80.1 268 4.5 36,678 29,599 3.26 0.02 0.39 0.73 0.06 94 Certification Doug Fir Crib 2.15 0.38 0.8 78.6 229 3.8 42,383 33,224 1.44 0.01 0.18 0.38 0.03 10 Certification Doug Fir Crib 4.02 1.32 2.4 75.7 130 2.2 79,930 60,530 2.85 0.02 0.33 1.32 0.05 31

R&D Cordwood 0.89 0.88 n/a 82.3 924 15.4 16,806 13,826 13.50 0.06 0.98 0.88 0.14 162 R&D Cordwood 1.14 0.68 n/a 80.9 797 13.3 21,465 17,362 9.00 0.04 0.60 0.68 0.09 158 R&D Cordwood 2.56 0.50 n/a 74.2 201 3.4 47,710 35,386 1.67 0.01 0.20 0.50 0.03 22

R&D Doug Fir Crib 1.52 0.40 82.2 319 5.3 30,153 24,774 2.12 0.02 0.26 0.40 0.04 48 R&D Doug Fir Crib 3.93 0.55 1.1 80.9 124 2.1 73,032 59,051 1.13 0.01 0.15 0.55 0.02 12

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000**E m** **i s** **s i** **o n** **s i** **n g** **/ h** **r**

**BTU Output**



## 5G3 Emissions in Gm/hr v BTU Output: IDEAL STEEL Hybrid

EPA Certification Tests

ANSI Poposed Cordwood

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000**O v** **e r** **a l** **l H** **e a** **t i** **n g** **E f** **f i** **c i** **e n** **c y** 

**BTU Output** 

## Overall Heating Efficiency v BTU Output: IDEAL STEEL Hybrid

EPA Certification Tests

ANSI Proposed Cordwood

# Medium Burn - Proposed (9/24/13) ASTM Standard High Burn - Proposed (9/24/13) ASTM Standard

Test Results in Accordance with CSA B415.1-10 Test Results in Accordance with CSA B415.1-10

Test Duration:

797 min 13.28 hrs Test Duration: 201 min 3.35 hrs HHV Basis LHV Basis HHV Basis LHV Basis Overall Efficiency 80.9% 87.1% Overall Efficiency 74.2% 79.9% Combustion Efficiency 99.5% 99.5% Combustion Efficiency 99.5% 99.5% Heat Transfer Efficiency 81.3% 87.6% Heat Transfer Efficiency 74.5% 80.3%

Output Rate (kJ/h) 18,303 17,362 (Btu/h) Output Rate (kJ/h) 37,303 35,386 Burn Rate (kg/h) 1.14 2.51 (lb/h) Burn Rate (kg/h) 2.53 5.57 Input (kJ/h) 22,628 21,465 (Btu/h) Input (kJ/h) 50,294 47,710

Test Load Weight (dry kg) 15.11 33.31 dry lb Test Load Weight (dry kg) 8.47 18.67 MC wet (%) 17.34 MC wet (%) 15.82 MC dry (%) 20.98 MC dry (%) 18.79 Particulate (g ) 9 Particulate (g ) 1.67 CO (g) 158 CO (g) 22 Test Duration (h) 13.28 Test Duration (h) 3.35

Emissions Particulate CO Emissions Particulate CO g/MJ Output 0.04 0.65 g/MJ Output 0.01 0.18 g/kg Dry Fuel 0.60 10.43 g/kg Dry Fuel 0.20 2.58 g/h 0.68 11.87 g/h 0.50 6.54 lb/MM Btu Output 0.09 1.51 lb/MM Btu Output 0.03 0.41
#### Adam GARCIA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-722.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 15, 1970.

Adam Garcia, in pro per.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J„ and CHARLES CARROLL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This court, proceeding in the manner outlined and recommended by the Supreme Court of the United States in Anders v. California, *386*U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. *1396,*18 L.Ed.2d 493, having deferred ruling on a motion of the public defender to withdraw as counsel for the indigent defendant-appellant, and having furnished appellant with a copy of the public defender’s memorandum brief, and having allowed the appellant a reasonable specified time within which to raise any points that he chose in support of his appeal, and the appellant having filed his response thereto, on consideration thereof upon full examination of the proceedings we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Whereupon, the public defender’s said motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment appealed is hereby affirmed.
**Exhibit 32**

 

**Certification**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officers of iParty Corp. (the “Company”) hereby certify that the Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 28, 2003 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date:  August 12, 2003 | /s/ SAL PERISANO                       |   |
|-----------------------------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|                        | Sal Perisano                           |
|                        | Chief Executive Officer                |
|                        |                                   |
| Date:  August 12, 2003 | /s/ PATRICK FARRELL                    |   |
|                        | Patrick Farrell                        |
|                        | President and Chief  Financial Officer |
|                             |                                        |        |  |

 

A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, orotherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within theelectronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### A. W. WATSON, Jr. and Martha Carol Smith, Appellants, v. Sallie WILLIAMS, Appellee.

No. L-388.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 3, 1970.

Jack A. Harnett, Quincy, for appellants.

Gregory, Towles & Beatty, Quincy, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This cause having been orally argued before the Court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellants having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court appealed from herein is affirmed. See Florida Power Corporation v. McNeely, 125 So.2d 311 (Fla. App. 1960).

CARROLL, DONALD, K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and RAWLS, JJ., concur.-
• Death/serious injury is unacceptable: • Humans make mistakes/humans are vulnerable: • Responsibility is shared: • Redundancy is crucial:

.

.

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR SPEED MANAGEMENT

This Case Study is part of the Safe S y stem Approach for Speed Management Report :

C li ck here to read the full report here .
SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR SPEED MANAGEMENT

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

road characteristics.

• 

• 

• 
SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR SPEED MANAGEMENT

. 

f.
Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

In connection with the Quarterly Report of American United Gold Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned officers of the Company hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

We have reviewed the Report;

based on our knowledge, the 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 the Report; and based on our knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in the 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 the Report.

Dated this 16th day of September, 2005

/s/ David Uppal                               David UppalPresident

/s/ Chand Jagpal                        Chand JagpalPrincipal Accounting Officer
# L_2005049EN.01003001.xml

| 22.2.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 49/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 49/30

---

COUNCIL COMMON POSITION 2005/146/CFSP

of 21 February 2005

extending Common Position 2004/161/CFSP renewing restrictive measures against Zimbabwe

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 15 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 19 February 2004 the Council adopted Common Position 2004/161/CFSP (1) renewing restrictive measures against Zimbabwe for a period of 12 months from 21 February 2004. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 19 February 2004 the Council adopted Common Position 2004/161/CFSP (1) renewing restrictive measures against Zimbabwe for a period of 12 months from 21 February 2004.

| (2) | In view of the situation in Zimbabwe, Common Position 2004/161/CFSP should be extended for a further period of 12 months, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

In view of the situation in Zimbabwe, Common Position 2004/161/CFSP should be extended for a further period of 12 months,

HAS ADOPTED THIS COMMON POSITION:

Article 1

Common Position 2004/161/CFSP shall be extended until 20 February 2006. It will be reviewed in the light of the parliamentary election which will take place in Zimbabwe in March 2005.

Article 2

This Common Position shall take effect on the date of its adoption.

Article 3

This Common Position shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 21 February 2005.

For the Council

The President

J. ASSELBORN

---

(1)  
  OJ L 50, 20.2.2004, p. 66.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000907093
<NAME>                        Leisure Time
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         275,000
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  452,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   219,000
<INVENTORY>                                    3,363,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4,582,000
<PP&E>                                         1,409,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 534,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 20,288,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          20,748,000
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    4,964,000
<COMMON>                                       6,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     (8,948,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   20,288,000
<SALES>                                        15,566,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               15,566,000
<CGS>                                          10,761,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  24,833,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1,249,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (20,028,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,310,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (18,718,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (8,826,000)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (27,701,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (4.81)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (4.81)




</TABLE>