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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

ERWIN HERRERA, a.k.a. Jose Manuel

Castillo,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-74543

Agency No. A078-039-482

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 20, 2011** 

Before: RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Erwin Herrera, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of the

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

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal

and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

FILED

MAY 03 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-74543

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, GonzalezHernandez v. Ashcroft , 336 F.3d 995, 998 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the

petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that, even if Herrera

established past persecution by the Gonzalez family on account of a protected

ground, any presumption of a clear probability of future persecution was rebutted

by evidence that he could reasonably relocate within Honduras. See 8 C.F.R.

§ 1208.16(b)(1)(i)(B); Gonzalez-Hernandez, 336 F.3d at 998-99. Herrera’s

contention that the agency applied the wrong standard when determining it was

reasonable for him to relocate is belied by the record.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Herrera

failed to establish his uncle’s threats regarding Herrera’s continued financial

support of his grandmother were on account of a protected ground. See Bolshakov

v. INS, 133 F.3d 1279, 1280-81 (9th Cir. 1998) (criminal activity does not establish

persecution on account of a protected ground); 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, Herrera’s withholding of removal claim fails. 
3 08-74543

Herrera has not raised any direct challenge to the agency’s denial of CAT

relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996)

(stating that issues not supported by argument are deemed abandoned).

Finally, we deny Herrera’s request for a remand because the BIA sufficiently

articulated the reasons for its decision. See Tekle v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 1044, 1051

(9th Cir. 2008).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Memorandum 

U.S. Department of 

Transportation 

Office of the Secretory 

of Transportation 

subject: Payout procedures as a result of the temporary closure of 

Wokal Field/Glasgow International Airport (Glasgow, 

Montana) 

(Docket DOT -OST -1997-2605) 

~ 1 /{)..Q !/~/ From:pt{ifnis J. De~, ~f 0 

EAS & Domestic Analysis, X-53 

To: Gregory Frazier, Resource Directorate, S-3.6 

Wokal Field/Glasgow International Airport (GGW) 

Date: May 30, 2012 

OAAMemoNo. 

2012-54 

Reply to Brian Swanson, X-53 

Attn. of: Ext. 65392 

Gulfstream (now, Silver Airways) provided notice that Wokal Field/Glasgow International 

Airport (Glasgow, Montana) would be closed for all flights due to runway construction, from 

approximately July 9, 2012, through July 28, 2012. Gulfstream currently provides subsidized 

EAS at Glasgow for a rate of $962.88 per arrival/departure. 

It has been our policy, on a case-by-case basis, to pay EAS carriers their usual subsidy rate 

when airports have been clos,ed on the grounds that the circumstances are beyond the carriers' 

control and there are only minimal cost savings to the carriers while they lose all of the 

revenue. The carriers would only save on fuel and a portion of maintenance because they 

would not be able to tum back aircraft or lay-off personnel. Consistent with this precedent, we 

ask you to compensate Gulfstream for the five nonstop and seven one-stop round trips each 

week to Billings, during the upcoming runway construction. 

Attachment 

cc: Mr. Mickey Bowman, Gulfstream 

Prairie Aviation, Wokal Field/Glasgow International Airport 
Swanson, Brian (OST) 

From: Devany, Dennis (OST) 

Sent: 

To: 

Tuesday, May 29, 2012 1:00 PM 

Swanson, Brian (OST) 

Subject: FW: GGW Airport Closure 

From: Mickey Bowman [mailto:mbowman(rugosilver.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 12:30 PM 

To: Devany, Dennis (OST); Schlemmer, Kevin (OST) 

Subject: FW: GGW Airport Closure 

Gents, 

Per my earlier note, the GGW airport will be dosing July 9 through 28 for Runway Work. Just want to make sure 

everyone is on the loop. 

MB 

From: Gwen Honrud 

Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 12:01 PM 

To: Linda Sackman; Michael Ritchey; Michael Purchon; Mickey Bowman; Gene Loendorf 

Cc: Qrairieav@yahoo.com 

Subject': GGW Airport Closure 

Good morning, 

The Glasgow airport is scheduled to be closed for all flights from 9 July through 28 July, provided the weather 

cooperates. These dates are not absolute and may shift forward or back. Prairie Aviation, as airport management, is CC'd 

above and can provide updates when available. 

Please let me know what to do on my end regarding getting the crew car to Wolf Point, and how to deal with 

reservations. 

Thank you, 

Gwen 

Gwen Honrud 1 GGW Station 

Email: ghonrud@gosilver.com 

Office: +1406~708~4159 

Mobile: +1831<I41-1918 

1 

'··"
IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2022 ND 121

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Jeremy John Frohlich, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20210303

Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial 

District, the Honorable Cynthia M. Feland, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Joshua A. Amundson, Assistant State’s Attorney, Bismarck, ND, for plaintiff 

and appellee.

Samuel A. Gereszek, Grand Forks, ND, for defendant and appellant.

FILED 

IN THE OFFICE OF THE 

CLERK OF SUPREME COURT 

JUNE 8, 2022 

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
1

State v. Frohlich

No. 20210303

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Jeremy Frohlich appeals from a criminal judgment after a jury found 

him guilty of two counts of gross sexual imposition. Frohlich argues the district 

court erred in finding him competent to stand trial. Two doctors testified

relating to Frohlich’s competency to stand trial at an August 2020 competency 

hearing. The district court made credibility findings after reviewing the 

testimony of both doctors. Those findings are not clearly erroneous and we are

not left with a definite and firm conviction a mistake was made. We summarily 

affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

[¶2] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.

Gerald W. VandeWalle

Daniel J. Crothers

Lisa Fair McEvers

Jerod E. Tufte
MEMORANDUM

TO: Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495

FROM: Nick Hutson, Energy and Strategies Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division

RE: Docket Items 11827-11875 and 11876-11888

DATE: December 10, 2015

I am Dr. Nick Hutson. I was closely involved in the development, preparation, and drafting of the 

standards of performance for new electric utility generating sources under section 111 (b) of the Clean 

Air Act. All of the docket items noted above were completed by or before August 3, 2015, the date of 

the rule’s signature. However, due to delays in electronic loading, docket items 11827-11875 were 

physically docketed in the early morning hours of August 4, 2015. Docket items 11876-11888 were 

inadvertently not physically docketed until later dates, but are cited in the preamble to the final rule and 

so were in existence and relied upon by the EPA by the date of the final rule’s signature.
EXHIBIT 16 - LETTER FROM FORMER ACCOUNTANT

Brian S. Nathanson, C.P.A.
Member:
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants
Tax Division
California Society of Certified Public Accountants

September 10, 1999

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

    Re: Landmark International, Inc.
    SEC File No.: 0-26578

Ladies and Gentlemen:
    Relative to the change in auditors, we have read the statements made by
Landmark International, Inc. We understand that these statements are being
filed with the Commission, pursuant to Item 8 of the Company's Form l0-KSB
report to be filed in September 1999. We agree with the statements concerning
our firm in such Form 10-KSB.

Sincerely,

/s/
Brian S Nathanson, CPA

cc: Landmark International, Inc. William Kettle


31O1 West Coast Highway, Suite 210, Newport Beach, California 92663
Telephone: (949)574-8333 Facsimile: (949) 574-8334
##### 



EXHIBIT 11
 PROFESSIONAL VETERINARY PRODUCTS, LTD.
 Statement re Computation of Per Share Earnings
  July 31,
    
    July 31,
    
    July 31,
    
    July 31,
    
    July 31,2001
    
    2002
    
    2003
    
    2004
    
    2005(Restated)
    
    (Restated)
    
    (Restated)
    
    (Restated)Numerator:Net income
    
    $
    387
    
    
    $
    1,109
    
    
    $
    3,214
    
    
    $
    2,978
    
    
    $
    2,536Denominator:Weighted average
common shares
outstanding
    
    
    1,447
    
    
    
    1,546
    
    
    
    1,733
    
    
    
    1,197
    
    
    
    1,254Earnings per common
share
    
    $
    267.58
    
    
    $
    717.14
    
    
    $
    1,854.47
    
    
    $
    2,487.77
    
    
    $
    2,022.61
<PAGE>
 
                                 EXHIBIT 23.5


                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS 

          We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
      Statement on Form S-3 (File No. 333-12973) and Form S-8 (File No.
      333-10317) of Patriot American Hospitality, Inc. of our report dated
      January 15 1996, on our audits of the financial statements of Certain of
      the Initial Hotels, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form
      10-K.


                                        COOPERS & LYBRAND LLP

      Fort Lauderdale, Florida 
      March 20, 1997
EXHIBIT
31.2




AULTRA
GOLD INC.




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 302




I, Rauno
Perttu, Chief Financial Officer of Aultra Gold Inc., certify that:




1. I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2008
of Aultra Gold Inc




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 issuer as of,
and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;




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




(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 issuer 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; and




(b)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the issuer'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 issuer's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the issuer's most recent fiscal quarter
(the issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the issuer's
internal control over financial reporting;




5. The
issuer's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the issuer's
auditors and the audit committee of the issuer's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions);




(a) All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; and




(b) Any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the issuer's internal controls over financial
reporting.






Date: August
      19, 2008
              By:
              /s/ Rauno
      PerttuRauno
      PerttuChief
      Financial Officer
##### 



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
   (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 results of operations of the Company.
  By:
    
    /s/ Romolo SantarosaRomolo SantarosaExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
### JUDGMENT 

## Court of Appeals First District of Texas

NO. 01

- 13

- 01038

- CR

GARRETT DEWAYNE WASH INGTON , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee
Appeal from the 262nd District Court of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 1186821 ).

This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed by the trial court on October 24, 2013. After submitting the case on the appellate record and the arguments properly raised by the parties, the Court holds that the trial court’s judgment contains no re versible error. Accordingly, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below for observance.

Judgment rendered November 19 , 2015. Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack
and Justices Bland and Huddle. Opinion delivered by Justice Huddle.
```

                                                                      Exhibit 23

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

         We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements (Nos. 333-06705, 333-30042, 333-89096 and 333-114898) on Form S-8 and
in the Registration Statements (Nos. 333-99201 and 333-122226) on Form S-3 of
our report dated August 16, 2006 for the years ended June 30, 2004, 2005 and
2006, and to the addition of our firm under the caption "Experts" in the
Prospectus, insofar as it relates to our report on the financial statements for
the three years ended June 30, 2006.

                                            /s/ Margolin Winer & Evens LLP
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Margolin, Winer & Evens LLP

Garden City, New York
September 13, 2006
```
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Chem Rx Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended March 31, 200, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jerry Silva, ChiefExecutive 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 Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                 The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| May 30, 2008 |                    |
|-------------------|-------------------------|
|              | /s/  Jerry Silva        |
|              | Jerry  Silva            |
|              | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
EXHIBIT
      32.2






CERTIFICATION
      OF THE CHIEF 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 China Clean Energy Inc., (the “Company”)
      on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007, as filed with
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gary
      Zhao, 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, to my knowledge:




(1)
            The
                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) of
                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 results of operations of the
                Company.




August
      7,
      2007




/s/
      Gary Zhao___________________


Gary
      Zhao


Chief
      Financial Officer
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T J ANUARY 21, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [ D O N O T P U B L I S H ]

I N T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C I R C U I T

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
N o

. 0 8

- 1 3 0 1 4

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
D

. C

. D o c k e t N o

. 0 6

- 8 1 0 4 1

- C V

- D M M

S E C U R I T I E S A N D E X C H A N G E C O M M I S S I O N ,

P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e ,

v e r s u s

J A M I E L

. S O L O W ,

D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
A p p e a l f r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e S o u t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f F l o r i d a

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ( J a n u a r y 2 1
, 2 0 0 9 )

B e f o r e H U L L , W I L S O N a n d H I L L , C i r c u i t J u d g e s

.

P E R C U R I A M :

A f t e r r e v i e w a n d o r a l a r g u m e n t , w e c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e D e f e n d a n t , J a m i e L

.

S o l o w , h a s n o t s h o w n r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r i n ( 1 ) t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s o r d e r , d a t e d M a r c h2 6
, 2 0 0 8
, d e n y i n g S o l o w ’ s m o t i o n f o r j u d g m e n t a s a m a t t e r o f l a w , o r i n t h e

a l t e r n a t i v e f

o r a n e w t r i a l
, ( 2 ) t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s o r d e r , d a t e d S e p t e m b e r 1 0
, 2 0 0 7 ,

g r a n t i n g t h e S e c u r i t i e s E x c h a n g e C o m m i s s i o n ’ s m o t i o n f o r l e a v e t o f

i l e a s e c o n d

a m e n d e d c o m p l a i n t , ( 3 ) t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s o r d e r , d a t e d M a y 1 0
, 2 0 0 7 , d e n y i n g

S o l o w ’ s m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s , ( 4 ) t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s o r d e r , d a t e d J a n u a r y 2 2
, 2 0 0 8
,

d e n y i n g S o l o w ’ s m o t i o n s i n l i m i n e , ( 5 ) t h e j u r y ’ s f i n d i n g a s e n u m e r a t e d o n t h e

g e n e r a l v e r d i c t f

o r m d a t e d J a n u a r y 3 1
, 2 0 0 8
, a n d ( 6 ) t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s e n t r y o f

f i n a l j u d g m e n t , d a t e d M a y 1 4
, 2 0 0 8
, i n f a v o r o f t h e S E C

.

A F F I R M E D

.
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 on Form 10-Q of AgFeed Industries, Inc.
(the “Company”) for the quarter ending June 30, 2010 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Xiong
Junhong, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:




(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 results of operations of the
      Company.






Dated:  August
      9, 2010
              By:
              /s/
      Xiong JunhongXiong
      JunhongChief
      Executive Officer




This
certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.


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.
#### Craig BROOKS, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, Board of Review of the Industrial Commission of Utah, Defendants.

No. 860284-CA.

Court of Appeals of Utah.

April 24, 1987.

LaMar Duncan, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff. ' '

Linda Wheat Field, Attorney, Dept, of Employment Sec., Salt Lake City, for defendants.

Before BENCH, BILLINGS and DAVIDSON, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

PER CURIAM:

In the above case, plaintiffs counsel filed with this Court a “docketing statement” that does not comply with Rule 9 of the Rules of the Utah Court of Appeals. The statement filed fails to set forth any statutory authority or rule which properly confers jurisdiction upon this Court., Other information required by Rule 9 is also lacking and necessary documents are not attached. R. Utah Ct.App. 9(d).

Docketing statements must fully comply with Rule 9. Failure to comply will result in dismissal of the appeal, particularly when counsel ignores our request that the statement be properly amended. *Gregory v. Fourthwest Investments Ltd.,*785 P.2d 33 (Utah 1987); R. Utah Ct.App. 9(e).

The appeal is dismissed.