alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**CERTIFICATION      OF**

**CHIEF      EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND**

**CHIEF      FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

| 1.     | Such                amended Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended March                31,                2007, 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 such amended Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A                for the period ended March 31, 2007, fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Grant                Enterprises, Inc. |
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |

**GRANT      ENTERPRISES, INC.**

*/s/ Shahin Shadmer*
#### Donna WOODS and Roger Woods, her husband, Appellants, v. Daniel B. ASHLIN, Appellee.

No. 88-0361.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 14, 1989.

Cathy Jackson Lerman of Cathy Jackson Lerman, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, and E. Hugh Chappell of Chappell & Brandt, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellants.

Nancy Little Hoffmann of Nancy Little Hoffmann, P.A., and Doreen Anderson of Billing, Cochran & Heath, P.A., Fort Laud-erdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

HERSEY, C.J., and DELL, J., concur.

GLICKSTEIN, J., concurs specially with opinion.

GLICKSTEIN, Judge,

concurring specially.

I would affirm for the same reasons as in the companion case of *Woods v. McDonald’s Corporation,*544 So.2d 343 (1989).
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 350

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION II

No. CR-13-1012

DENARIUS A. MARTIN

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

 APPELLEE

Opinion Delivered June 4, 2014

APPEAL FROM THE CRITTENDEN

COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. CR-2008-459]

HONORABLE RANDY F.

PHILHOURS, JUDGE

AFFIRMED; MOTION TO

WITHDRAW GRANTED

BILL H. WALMSLEY, Judge

On June 30, 2008, appellant Denarius Martin pleaded guilty to burglary, and he

received five years’ probation and was ordered to pay restitution, fines, fees, and costs. On

April 22, 2013, the State filed a petition to revoke his probation alleging, among other things,

that Martin failed to make any payments toward what he owed. The Crittenden County

Circuit Court found that Martin had violated the terms and conditions of his probation and,

upon revocation, sentenced him to two years in a regional correctional facility followed by

seven years’ suspended imposition of sentence. Defense counsel has filed a motion to

withdraw on the basis that there is no merit to an appeal.

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Rule 4-3(k) of the Rules

of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, defense counsel’s motion was

accompanied by a brief that purports to address all adverse rulings with an explanation why
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 350

each ruling is not a meritorious ground for reversal. Martin was provided with a copy of

counsel’s brief and notified of his right to file pro se points for reversal. Martin has not filed

any points. 

From our review of the record and the briefs presented to us, we agree with defense

counsel that there is no merit to an appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the order of revocation and

grant defense counsel’s motion to withdraw.

Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted. 

HARRISON and WYNNE, JJ., agree.

C. Brian Williams, for appellant.

No response.

2
Exhibit 32.1SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION     In connection with the Annual Report of Central Parking Corporation (the “Company”) on Form10-K for the year ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onJanuary 29, 2007 (the “Report”), I, Emanuel Eads, 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 of2002, that: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (b) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.              /s/ EMANUEL EADS   Emanuel Eads   Chief Executive Officer        A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN PROVIDED TOCENTRAL PARKING CORPORATION AND WILL BE RETAINED BY CENTRAL PARKING CORPORATION AND FURNISHED TOTHE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.     The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18U.S.C. section 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities ExchangeAct 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 insuch filing. This certification is executed as of January 29, 2007.
Exhibit
32.2




SECTION
906 CERTIFICATION




The
undersigned hereby certifies that the Quarterly Report on From 10-Q of Israel
Growth Partners Acquisition Corp. (the “Registrant”) for the fiscal quarter
ended October 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of the
Registrant.




Dated:
      December 15, 2009
            
            /s/ J. Patrick McMahonJ.
      Patrick McMahonChief
      Financial Officer
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**783 CA 11-00281**  PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CENTRA, FAHEY, GORSKI, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

SHAWN STENGLEIN, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

V ORDER

JOHN REIGLE, DEFENDANT, AND QUALITY HOMES OF ROCHESTER, INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

RUPP, BAASE, PFALZGRAF, CUNNINGHAM & COPPOLA LLC, ROCHESTER (MATTHEW A. LENHARD OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
RINERE & RINERE, LLP, ROCHESTER (JOSEPH D. RINERE OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Ann Marie Taddeo, J.), entered May 5, 2010 in a personal injury action. Insofar as appealed from, the order, inter alia, granted the motion of plaintiff for partial summary judgment against defendant Quality Homes of Rochester, Inc. pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1) and denied that part of the cross motion of defendant Quality Homes of Rochester, Inc. for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240 (1) claim.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court.

Entered: June 10, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan Clerk of the Court
#### STATE OF CONNECTICUT *v.*THOMAS F. KIRKER, JR.

*Jeremiah Donovan,*in support of the petition.

*Peter McShane,*assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided March 25, 1998

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 47 Conn. App. 612 (AC 16362/ 16866), is denied.
#### STATE ex rel. Ronnie FRANCIOS v. Edwin LOMBARD, Clerk of Court, Criminal District Court, Orleans Parish.

No. 88-KH-2509.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 27, 1989.

In re Francios, Ronnie; — Plaintiff(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “E”, No. 308-847; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 88KW-1489.

Denied. No particularized need shown.
#### Andrew GALLAGHER v. H. Mortimer FAVROT d/b/a Park Manor Apartments and/or Kingstowne Apartments, and Lake Development Management Company and ABC Insurance Company.

No. 87-C-0364.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 13, 1987.

In re Gallagher, Andrew; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 86-CA-396; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court, Div. “G”, No. 288-945.

Prior report: La.App., 499 So.2d 1205.

Denied.

CALOGERO and LEMMON, JJ., would grant the writ.
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

June 3, 2005

Mr. Darrell R. Greer

Godwin Gruber 

1201 Elm Street, Suite 1700 

Dallas, TX 75270

Honorable Rose R. Vela

148th District Court

901 Leopard, Room 903

Corpus Christi, TX 78401-3605

Mr. Luther H. Soules III

Langley & Banack, Inc.

745 East Mulberry , Suite 900

San Antonio, TX 78212-3166

Mr. David Roy Nelson

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld

300 Convent St., Suite 1500

San Antonio, TX 78205

Mr. Brian Charles Miller

Hermansen, McKibben, Woolsey & Villarreal

555 North Carancahua, Suite 1100

Corpus Christi, TX 78478

RE:IN RE  FLOWSERVE U.S., INC. AND TEAM INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INC.

Case Number:  04-0854

Court of Appeals Number:  13-04-00293-CV

Trial Court Number:  03-3304-E

***- consolidated with -***

IN RE  PUFFER-SWEIVEN INC.

Case Number:  04-0856

Court of Appeals Number:  13-04-00288-CV

Trial Court Number:  03-3304-E

Dear Counsel:

Today, the Supreme Court of Texas issued the enclosed order in the above-referenced consolidated causes.  The causes are abated until further order of this Court.  It is the 

responsibility of the parties to immediately notify this Court of the trial court’s ruling.

Sincerely,

Andrew Weber, Clerk

by Gena Pelham, Deputy Clerk

Enclosure

Case No. 04-0854Page 2
#### AMERICAN FIDELITY & CASUALTY COMPANY, Inc., v. Dorrion MENDEZ, and four other cases.

No. 9354.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Jan. 2, 1940.

Henderson Stockton, Eli Gorodezky, S. N. Karam, and J. W. Cherry, Jr., all of Phoenix, Ariz., for appellant.

Minne & Sorenson and George T. Wilson, all of Phoenix, Ariz., for appellees.

Before WILBUR, GARRECHT, and HANEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Upon stipulation of counsel for respective parties, and good cause therefor appearing, ordered appeals herein dismissed, that a judgment of dismissal be filed and entered accordingly, and that the mandate oi this court in this cause issue forthwith.
Exhibit 15.2

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements:



|1. | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-122801) pertaining to the Smith & Nephew 2004 Executive Share Option Scheme
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-122801) pertaining to the Smith & Nephew 2004 Performance Share Plan
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|3. | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-122801) pertaining to the Smith & Nephew 2004 Co-investment Plan
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|4. | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-13694) pertaining to the Smith & Nephew 2001 US Share Plan
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|5. | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-12052) pertaining to the Smith & Nephew U.S. Employee Stock Purchase Plan
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|6. | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-39814) pertaining to the Smith & Nephew Long Service Award Scheme
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|7. | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-155173) pertaining to the Smith & Nephew 2001 US Share Plan
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|8. | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-155172) pertaining to the Smith & Nephew 2004 Performance Share Plan
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|9. | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-158239) pertaining to the Smith & Nephew plc Deferred Bonus Plan
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|10. | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-168544) pertaining to the Smith & Nephew Global Share Plan 2010
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|11. | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-199117) pertaining to the Smith & Nephew Global Share Plan 2010
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

of our report dated February 25, 2015, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Smith & Nephew plc for each of the two years in the
period ended 31 December 2014 before the effects of the adjustments to retrospectively reflect the change in the composition of reportable segments, which report appears in the Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2015.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Ernst & Young LLP

London, England

4 March 2016
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Earl KYZAR.

No. 87-K-1524.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 13, 1987.

In re Kyzar, Earl; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. KA86 0245; Parish of Tangipahoa, 21st Judicial District Court, Div. “E”, Nos. 49056, 49057.

Prior report: La.App., 509 So.2d 147.

Denied.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2464 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 2-hydroxyethyl-n-octyl sulfide. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

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

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 2-hydroxyethyl-n-octyl 

sulfide. 

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

3 SECTION 1. 2-HYDROXYETHYL-N-OCTYL SULFIDE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 2-Hydroxyethyl-n-octyl sulfide (CAS No. 3547–33–9) 

(provided for in subheading 

2930.90.91) ........................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2464 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST OF :

A

. A.L., G.B.L., and A.D.L
.,
CHILD REN

. §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 2 4

- 00 305

- C V
Appeal from the

6 5 th Judicial District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2022DCM 4829 )

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant C hildren’s counsel filed a report regarding the trial court’s hearing on Appellant

C. G .’s motion for new trial
, which includes as an attach ment the trial court’s September 3, 2024
order granting a new trial

. On September 9, 2024, the clerk of this Court informed the parties of
the Court’s intention to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction pursuant to Texas Rule of
Appellate Procedure 42.3 unless, by September 19, 2024, any party could show ground s for
continuing the appeal. See In Interest of A.A. , No. 08

- 15

- 00177

- CV, 2015 WL 4134940, at *1
(Tex. App.

— El Paso July 8, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op.).

A trial court ’ s order granting a motion for new trial render s a pending appeal moot. JJW,

L.L.C. v. Aguirre , No. 08

- 16

- 00051

- CV, 2016 WL 3632809, at *1 (Tex. App.

— El Paso July 6,
2016, no pet.) (mem. op.)

. It is well established that a court is prohibited from deciding moot

controversies. National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Jones , 1 S.W.3d 83, 86 (Tex. 1999)

. To2 date, no party has shown grounds for continuing the appeal. As t he trial court ’ s order granting the
motion for new trial has rendered this appeal moot , we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Tex. R. App. P. 42.3 (a)

. Any pending motions are denied as moot.

L ISA J. SOTO

September 26, 2024
Before Alley, C.J., Palafox and Soto, JJ.
#### Loren SONFIELD v. Sam E. BURLESON, Jr.

No. 89-C-1275.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 30, 1989.

In re Burleson, Sam E. Jr.; — Defendants); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 88CA-1182; Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court, Div. “E”, No. 86-19419.

Prior report: La.App., 543 So.2d 488.

Denied.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2329 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain plastic fittings composed of 

perfluoroalkoxy (PFA) resin. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. KERRY (for himself and Mr. KIRK) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain plastic fittings 

composed of perfluoroalkoxy (PFA) resin. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PLASTIC FITTINGS COMPOSED OF 

4 PERFLUOROALKOXY (PFA) RESIN. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2329 IS

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Plastic fittings composed of 

perfluoroalkoxy (PFA) resin 

with internal diameters ranging from 1.59 mm to 35.1 

mm (provided for in subheading 3917.40.00) ............. Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 

3 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

4 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
Document

PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY, NEWARK, NEW JERSEY




RETURN OF ADJUSTED PURCHASE PAYMENTS DEATH BENEFIT 
SCHEDULE SUPPLEMENT








Annuity Number:  [001-00001]


Effective Date of the Return of Adjusted Purchase Payments Death Benefit Rider:  [Effective Date]


Charge for the Rider :  [0.10]%






P-SCH-ROP(11/20)-NY
#### STATE ex rel. Robert WALKER v. Hon. Leon A. CANNIZZARO, Judge, Criminal District Court, Sec. J, Parish of Orleans.

No. 87-KH-0338.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 19, 1987.

In re Walker, Robert; applying for writ of mandamus; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “J”, Nos. 248-949, 247-259.

Granted. The district court is ordered to act, if it has not already done so, on the post conviction petition submitted in November, 1986, if it has been filed.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Kenneth G. DUPRE.

No. 86-KH-2459.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 9, 1987.

In re Dupre, Kenneth G.; applying for remedial writs; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. K86-1156; Parish of Acadia, 15th Judicial District Court, Div. “B”.

Denied. Venue is in East Baton Rouge Parish.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2443 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain implements for cleaning hunted 

fowl. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

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

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain implements for 

cleaning hunted fowl. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN IMPLEMENTS FOR CLEANING HUNT4 ED FOWL. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2443 IS

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Implements for cleaning 

hunted fowl; constructed of 

stainless steel, with mount 

for standard vehicle trailer 

hitch for stability during use 

(provided for in subheading 

7326.90.85) ........................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
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

ARTURO GONZALEZ CURIEL; et al.,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-72105

Agency Nos. A073-833-370

 A075-308-803

 A075-308-808

 A075-308-809

 A075-308-919

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 13, 2010** 

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Arturo Gonzalez Curiel, his wife, and three of their children, natives and

citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration

Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision

denying Gonzalez Curiel’s application for cancellation of removal. We have

FILED

SEP 23 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-72105

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

agency’s continuous physical presence determination, Gutierrez v. Mukasey, 521

F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 2008), and review de novo questions of law, including

due process challenges, Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir.

2003). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Gonzalez

Curiel knowingly and voluntarily accepted administrative voluntary departure in

lieu of deportation proceedings where the Spanish-language administrative

voluntary departure agreement reflected that Gonzalez Curiel had time to review

the agreement before signing it. See Gutierrez, 521 F.3d at 1117-18 (requiring

some evidence that the alien was informed of and accepted the terms of the

voluntary departure agreement). The agency therefore properly concluded that

Gonzalez Curiel did not meet the continuous physical presence requirement for

cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1); Vasquez-Lopez v. Ashcroft,

343 F.3d 961, 974 (9th Cir. 2003) (per curiam). 

We reject petitioners’ due process contention because the record reflects that

the IJ provided them a “full and fair hearing” and a “reasonable opportunity to
3 08-72105

present evidence on [their] behalf.” Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.

2000).

Petitioners’ remaining contentions are not persuasive.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.