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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE MANUEL MACHORRO

- ZAMORA,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 18

- 70801

Agency No. A200

- 947

- 704

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 18, 2019 **

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

Jose Manuel Machorro

- Zamora, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro

se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal

from an immigration judge’s denial of his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to

reopen and rev iew de novo claims of ineffective assistance of counsel

. Mohammed

* 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

NOV 25 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 18

- 70801

v. Gonzales

, 400 F.3d 785, 79 1

- 92 (9th Cir. 2005)

. We deny the petition for

review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying reopening based on

ineffective assistance of cou nsel

. Machorro

- Zamora did not show his former

attorney failed to perform with sufficient competence by declining to file an

application for cancellation of removal , where Machorro

- Zamora was ineligible for

that relief at the time

. See id. at 793 (t o demonstrate ineffective assistance of

counsel, a petitioner must show counsel failed to perform with sufficient

competence ) ; Torres

- Chavez v. Holder , 567 F.3d 1096, 1101 (9th Cir. 2009)

( declining to find ineffective assistance where counsel made a tacti cal decision;

court must evaluate counsel’s decisions from counsel’s perspective at the time)

.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being
prepared;(b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; and(c)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
    Dated: May 25, 2007
    By:
    /s/ James T. EngenJames T. EngenChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1134 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to issue regulations covering 

the practice of enrolled agents before the Internal Revenue Service. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 11, 2013 

Mr. PORTMAN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to issue regulations covering the practice of enrolled agents before 

the Internal Revenue Service. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Enrolled Agents Cre5 dential Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ENROLLED AGENTS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 77 of the Internal Rev8 enue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the 

9 following new section: 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1134 IS

1 ‘‘SEC. 7529. ENROLLED AGENTS. 

2 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may prescribe 

3 such regulations as may be necessary to regulate the con4 duct of enrolled agents in regards to their practice before 

5 the Internal Revenue Service. 

6 ‘‘(b) USE OF CREDENTIALS.—Any enrolled agents 

7 properly licensed to practice as required under rules pro8 mulgated under subsection (a) shall be allowed to use the 

9 credentials or designation as ‘enrolled agent’, ‘EA’, or 

10 ‘E.A.’.’’. 

11 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

12 for chapter 77 of such Code is amended by adding at the 

13 end the following new item: 

‘‘Sec. 7529. Enrolled agents.’’. 

14 (c) PRIOR REGULATIONS.—Nothing in the amend15 ments made by this section shall be construed to have any 

16 effect on part 10 of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations, 

17 or any other related Federal rule or regulation issued be18 fore the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Francis KNIGHT and Pauline Knight, husband and wife, Appellants, v. Johns KNIGHT and Virginia Knight, husband and wife, Appellees.

No. 71-182.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 17, 1972.

Rehearing Denied April 18, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1

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 Quarterly Report of Ambassadors International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Joseph J. Ueberroth, Chief Executive Officer of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



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



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Joseph J. Ueberroth
|Joseph J. Ueberroth    
|Chief Executive Officer
|May 10, 2006           

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany this Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350
and in accordance with SEC Release No. 33-8238, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made
before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
252 La. 121

#### Mrs. Monty TYLER, wife of/and John F. GRANT v. TOURO INFIRMARY, New Amsterdam Casualty Company and Hardware Mutual Casualty Company.

No. 49185.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 19, 1968.

In re: Hardware Mutual Casualty Company for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 207 So.2d 235.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7750

WALTER COLUMBUS SIMMONS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

HUGH CHATHAM HOSPITAL; FORSYTH HOSPITAL,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, 

Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:13-cv-00677-WO-JLW)

Submitted: January 21, 2014 Decided: January 24, 2014

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Walter Columbus Simmons, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Walter Columbus Simmons appeals the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(b) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. Simmons v. Hugh Chatham Hosp., No. 1:13-

cv-00677-WO-JLW (M.D.N.C. Oct. 22, 2013). We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 32.01
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350 ASADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002
       In connection with theannual report on Form 10-KSB of The Furia Organization, Inc. (the "Company") forthe fiscal year ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned Chief ExecutiveOfficer and principal financial and accounting officer of the Company herebycertifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
       1.  The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and
       
       2.  The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.
Dated: October 11, 2005
 
By:  /s/ Michael D. Alexander
  
Michael D. Alexander
  
Chief Executive Officer
  
Chief Accounting Officer
  
and Principal Financial Officer
 
****
Submitted on record and briefs January 22,

affirmed February 5, 1970

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*ALTON M. BLANK, *Appellant.*

464 P.2d 836

Oscar D. Howlett, Portland, filed the brief for appellant.

Jacob B. Tanzer, Solicitor General, Salem, filed the brief for respondent. With him on the brief was Lee Johnson, Attorney General, Salem.

Before Schwab, Chief Judge, and Langtry and Foley, Judges.

*551PER CURIAM.

Defendant was tried and convicted upon'jury trial of the crime of receiving and concealing stolen property. He did not take the witness stand. His sole ground of appeal is that the trial court erred in instructing the jury:

> “Every witness who testified is presumed to speak the truth. This presumption, however, may be overcome by. the manner in which he or she testifies, by the character of his or her testimony, by the interest he or she has in the outcome of the case, by contradictory evidence, or by a presumption.”

*State v. Kessler,*254 Or 124, 458 P2d 432 (1969), holds that this instruction is not erroneous.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 760 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 760

 Expressing support for designation of October 2, 2014, as World MRSA 
                                  Day.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 19, 2014

 Ms. Schakowsky submitted the following resolution; which was referred 
          to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing support for designation of October 2, 2014, as World MRSA 
                                  Day.

Whereas MRSA is an acronym for methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus, 
        which causes deadly infections in patients in health care facilities and 
        within our communities;
Whereas the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have estimated that 
        hospital-acquired MRSA infections alone killed more than 11,285 United 
        States residents in 2011;
Whereas patient and consumer organizations around the globe are lending their 
        voices to the call of world unity in leadership and commitment in 
        preventing and stopping MRSA, which is pandemic and spreading at 
        alarming rates;
Whereas leading patient and consumer advocates call upon health care officials 
        and leaders to step up and take a more comprehensive approach to 
        eradicate this preventable disease and focus on a broad and pro-active 
        prevention program;
Whereas as an integral part of its multi-faceted program, the MRSA Survivors 
        Network (the first consumer organization in the United States to raise 
        the alarm concerning the MRSA epidemic and other multi-drug resistant 
        health care-acquired infections) has announced ``World MRSA Day'', which 
        will be held on October 2, 2014, and is commemorated each year on 
        October 2, and has recognized the month of October as ``World MRSA 
        Awareness Month'' in order to call attention to this worldwide epidemic; 
        and
Whereas the MRSA Survivors Network has announced that April 1-7, 2014, has been 
        designated as ``International MRSA Testing Week'' in order to call 
        attention to this worldwide epidemic: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the designation of World MRSA Day; and
            (2) supports the designation of International MRSA Testing 
        Week.
                                 <all>
```
#### Collins *v.*State.

(Division B.

March 11, 1935.)

[159 So. 865.

No. 31595.]

F. L. Reich and Jas. L. Davis, both of Louisville, for the motion.

Anderson, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Appellant was convicted at the July, 1934, term of the circuit court of Winston county of the crime of unlawfully possessing intoxicating liquor, and sentenced to serve sixty days in jail and pay a fine of fifty dollars and costs. From that judgment, he prosecutes this appeal.

Appellant makes a motion in this court to vacate the judgment on the ground that it was not entered on the minutes of the circuit court until after the court had ad*180journed. The motion is supported by an affidavit of the circuit clerk, stating that to be true. The judgment appearing in the appeal record is regular in all respects; it shows that it was entered at the term of the circuit court during which it was rendered. The motion, therefore, is an attack on the truth of that recital of fact in the record.

The Supreme Court is a court of appeals, it has no original jurisdiction; it can only try questions that have been tried and passed upon by the court from which the appeal is taken. 'Whatever remedy appellant has is in the trial court, not in this court. This court can only pass on the question after the trial court has done so.

Motion overruled.
Skip to main content  

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

**Official websites use .gov**                              A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.                          

**Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**              A **lock**                (LockA locked padlock)                or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.            

***HHS**Careers      *

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

            -  Working at HHS                -  Mission 
              -  Benefits 
              -  Agencies 
              -  Working in Government 
            -  Stories                -  From The Field 
              -  From The Lab 
              -  From The Office 
            -  How To Apply                -  HHS Careers Events Calendar 
              -  General Public 
              -  Join the Unaccompanied Children Response 
              -  Native Americans 
              -  Peace Corps and AmeriCorps VISTA Service 
              -  People With Disabilities 
              -  Presidential Management Fellows Program (PMF) 
              -  Recent Graduates 
              -  Scientists 
              -  Students 
              -  U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps 
              -  Veterans 
            -  Job Openings 

# Working in Government

You’re making a great choice when you choose a career with the U.S. Government. As a federal employee, you and your family will enjoy workplace flexibilities, telework, and dependent care. 

Explore some of the reasons working for the U.S. Government and HHS can provide you with a rewarding career. 
                        -  Mission 
                        -  Benefits 
                        -  Agencies 

Are you ready to step up to our challenge to take on a rewarding career that can change lives for the better? Come to work with a mission.

December 11, 2019

### Connect With Us

----

### **HHS** Careers

HHS HeadquartersU.S. Department of Health & Human Services200 Independence Avenue SWWashington, DC 20201Toll Free Call Center: 1-877-696-6775Contact HHS

Current Job Openings

Nondiscrimination NoticeAccessibilityPrivacy PolicyViewers & PlayersEEO/No Fear ActFOIA
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

J.J.J., a child,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-669

[May 17, 2018]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Gregory M. Keyser, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

502016CJ000361A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Virginia Murphy, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Anesha Worthy, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

MAY, CIKLIN and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 00-1096.

#### Bordon et al. *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Samuel GILES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-1040.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 5, 1974.

Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Bretan, Marks, Attias & Raskin, Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and William L. Rogers, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and CARROLL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant pleaded guilty to the crime of uttering a worthless check. He was so adjudged and was sentenced to imprisonment for three years with credit for certain jail time served. Several months thereafter he moved under Rule 3.850 CrPR, 33 F.S.A., for vacation of the judgment and sentence and to be permitted to withdraw his plea of guilty and plead not *513guilty. The motion was denied and the defendant appealed.

We find no merit in the appeal. Full and adequate inquiry was made by the court at the time of the entry of the plea, sufficient to disclose on the record that the same was knowingly and voluntarily made.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9
<MULTIPLIER>                                         1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         559,610
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         268,636
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 95,089,513
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      21,303,093
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        21,215,900
<LOANS>                                    106,663,928
<ALLOWANCE>                                  (410,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             233,185,263
<DEPOSITS>                                 122,454,440
<SHORT-TERM>                                12,500,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          2,024,427
<LONG-TERM>                                 47,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        39,814
<OTHER-SE>                                  47,363,896
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             233,185,263
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              6,213,353
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            6,303,830
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            12,517,183
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           4,836,492
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           7,567,563
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        4,949,620
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   80,921
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             384,557
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              3,702,567
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,816,245
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   1,479,063
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,479,063
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .49
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    2.94
<LOANS-NON>                                    428,230
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               332,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    2,921
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              410,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           410,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        


</TABLE>
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1140 

To extend the authorization of the Highlands Conservation Act through 

fiscal year 2024. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 11, 2013 

Mrs. GILLIBRAND introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To extend the authorization of the Highlands Conservation 

Act through fiscal year 2024. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF HIGHLANDS CONSERVATION 

4 ACT. 

5 (a) EXTENSION OF LAND CONSERVATION PROJECTS

6 IN THE HIGHLANDS REGION.—Section 4(e) of the High7 lands Conservation Act (Public Law 108–421; 118 Stat. 

8 2377) is amended by striking ‘‘2014’’ and inserting 

9 ‘‘2024’’. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1140 IS

1 (b) EXTENSION OF FOREST SERVICE AND USDA 

2 PROGRAMS IN THE HIGHLANDS REGION.—Section 5(c) of 

3 the Highlands Conservation Act (Public Law 108–421; 

4 118 Stat. 2378) is amended by striking ‘‘2014’’ and in5 serting ‘‘2024’’. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS