alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
AR TUR O JHOHAR

Y GUTIER

REZVAR GAS, Pe t i tione r,
v. W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 15-72047 Age n c y No. A200-690-635
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d August 7, 2019 ** B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , HAW KINS and M c KEOW N, C i rc uit Judge s. Arturo Jhoha

ry Gutie rre z -Varga s , a

native and c itiz e n of M e xic o, pe titions for re vie w of the B o a

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing his
a ppe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s de c ision de ny ing his a pplic at ion for a sy lum , 

# FIL ED AUG 26 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).withholding of rem o v a l, a nd re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Against Torture(“ C AT” ). W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252 a nd we de ny

the pe t ition. Whe the r a

group c onstitute s a “ pa

rtic ula r soc ia l group” is a

que stion of la

w that we re vie w de nov o , Pe rdomo v . Holde r , 611 F.3d 662, 665 (9th C ir. 2010), but
we de fe r to the B IA’ s inte rpre tation of gove rning sta tute s a nd re gula tions, Sime onov v . Ashc roft , 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th C ir. 2004). W e re vie w for substa ntia l e vide nc e the a ge nc y ’ s fa c tua l findings. Se eSilv a-Pe re ira v . Ly nc h , 827 F.3d 1176, 1184 (9th C ir. 2016). The B IA did not e rr in finding tha t Gutie rre z -Varga s ha s not e s ta blishe d
m e m b e rship in a

c ogniz a ble soc ia l group. Se e Re

y e s v . Ly nc h , 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th C ir. 2016) (e xpla ining c ogniz a bility sta nda rd) (c iting Matte r

of M-E-GV- , 26 I & N De c . 227, 237 (B IA 2014)). Gutie rre z -Varga s ha s not e sta b lishe d tha

t pe rsons re turning to M e xic o from the Unite d State s who ha ve a ssim ila

t e d to the
c ulture would bepe rc e ive d by soc ie ty a s a pa rtic u la r soc ia l group. Se eDe lgadoOrtiz v . Holde r , 600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 (9th C ir. 2010) (re turne e s from the Unite d Stat e s to M e x ic o is not a pa rtic ula r soc ia l group). Thus, Gutie rre z -Va rga s’ s
a sy lum and withholding of re m ova l c l a im s fa il. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s de nia l of C AT re lie f. The re c ord doe s not c om

pe l the c onc lusion tha

t Gutie rre z -Varga s is “ m ore like ly tha n not” to
2be torture d by or with thec onse nt or a c quie sc e nc e of the gove rnm e nt if he re turns to M e xic o . Se e 8 C .F.R . § 1208.16(c )(2); se ealso Ade n v . Holde r , 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th C ir. 2009). Thus, Gutie rre z -Varga s’ s C AT c la i m a l so fa ils. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

3
Continued on next page

USDA Cattle & Carcass Training Center Training Event 

Cow Herd Management,

Slaughter Cow Evaluation &

Marketing Course 

Location: USDA Cattle & Carcass Training Center at West 

Texas A&M University and Caviness Beef Packers 

Wednesday, September 21, 2022:

• 8:00 – 8:15: Introductions 

• 8:15 – 9:45: Cow Herd Management and Best Practices 

 Jason Smith, Ag Extension 

 Juan Piñeiro, Ag Extension 

• 9:45 – 10:00: Break

• 10:00 – 11:00: NBQA Cows

 Dr. Lawrence, West Texas A&M University 

• 11:00 – 12:00: Slaughter Cow Guidelines and Market Reports

 Tina Colby, USDA Market News 

• 12:00 – 1:00: Lunch

• 1:00 – 1:30: Live Animal Video Evaluation

• 1:30 – 1:45: Break
Agricultural Marketing Service

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

August 2022 / www.ams.usda.gov

• 1:45 – 3:00: Evaluation of Live Animals 

• 3:00 – 3:15: Break

• 3:15 – 4:30: Live Cow Purchasing Panel Discussion 

 Moderator Dr. Pond, West Texas A&M University 

 Joe Barbour, Livestock Marketing Association

 Ty Cranmer, Caviness Beef Packers Cow Buyer 

 Scott McNeley - Simplot 

Thursday, September 22, 2022: 

• 8:00 – 8:15: Recap of Previous Day

• 8:15 – 9:15: USDA Cow Meat Reporting Overview 

 Chris Sommers, USDA Market News 

• 9:15 – 9:30: Break

• 9:30-11:00: Carcass Breakdown and Pricing Demonstration 

 Dr. Lucherk, West Texas A&M University 

• 11:00 – 11:15: Break

• 11:15 – 12:00: Marketing/Manufacturing/End Product 

 Dr. Tennant, West Texas A&M University 

• 12:00 – 1:00: Lunch

• 1:00 – 2:00: Industry Panel Discussion

 Moderator Dr. Pond, West Texas A&M University 

 Sheldon Phillip, Fulton Marketing Group 

 Cheyenne McEndaffer, U.S. Meat Export Federation

 Trevor Caviness, Caviness Beef Packers 

• 2:30 – 5:00: Tour of Grinding Facility 

• 5:00: Closing Remarks
#### Allen Whitted, Appellant, v. Mrs. C. R. Abbe, *Appellee.*

Appellate Practice — Sole Method of Obtaining Notice of Appeal is by record of the Entry of Appeal in Chancery Order Book — Parties to Appeal Must be Included in the Recorded Entry of'Appeal.'

1. Under the provisions of section 1911, general statutes of 1906, the only method of procuring notice of an appeal to the parties thereto- is by the recording of the entry of appeal in the chancery order book in the office of the clerk of the circuit court. The appellate court, under such statute, has no authority to procure such notice through a summons or other •writ issued by it.

*6702. The only effective method, under the provisions of section *1911,*general statutes of 1906, of making parties to an appeal, either appellant or appellee, is to include them as parties in the entry of appeal to be recorded in the chancery order book.

This case was decided by the court *En Banc.*

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Manatee County.

The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

*Singletary &*Reaves, for appellant;

*C. C.*Whitaker, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

— .This cause came on for hearing' upon an application to amend the entry of appeal in said cause here by adding new parties appellant, and for summons to such new parties. Under the provisions of Section 1911 of the.General Statutes of 1906 the only method of procuring notice of an appeal to the parties thereto is by the recording of the entry of appeal in the chancery order book, therefore the application for summons here must be denied; and as the only way to make parties appellant or appellee is to. include them in the entry of appeal as so recorded, the other feature of such application must be denied and it is so ordered, but with leave to the appellant to have the present appeal dismissed here by praecipe to be filed with the clerk here, and with leave to enter a new appeal with proper parties appellant and appellee, and with leave to make application to the court here, upon due notice to the adverse party, for leave to use the record now on file here upon such second appeal and to'amend such record by incorporating therein such new entry of appeal properly certified.

All concur.
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 02654

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

02654\02654_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

02654\02654_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 02654\02654_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 02654\02654_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 02654\02654_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 02654\02654_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 02654\02654_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 02654\2654_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

02654\Certification Statement Plant ID 02654.pdf Plant certification statement

x 02654\Supplemental Documents\Water Flow Diagram June 2010.doc Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket. 

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database .
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Alex Kaplan, Appellant.

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Brenda Soloff, J.), rendered on April 19, 1990, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of marijuana in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 5 years’ probation, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant was arrested after the execution of a search warrant for his apartment resulted in the seizure of a large quantity of marijuana. The warrant was based on a registered confidential informant’s detailed description of the man who allegedly received delivery of the marijuana in the apartment in which it was stored. Contrary to defendant’s argument, the *490
      *Aguilar-Spinelli*test is not applicable here, since the confidential informant was examined in person by the Magistrate *(People v Taylor,*73 NY2d 683, 688). In any event, the informant’s reliability was established by his statements against his own penal interest concerning his involvement in transporting the marijuana *(People v Brown,*40 NY2d 183, 187). Further, his basis of knowledge was established through his detailed descriptions which were based on direct observations of the person to whom delivery was made and of the apartment where the marijuana was being stored. *(People v Bigelow,*66 NY2d 417, 423.) Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Wallach, Kupferman and Smith, JJ.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DENNIS PERRYMAN,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

JAMES DEACON; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 14-35224

D.C. No. 2:12-cv-01234-AC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Marco A. Hernandez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 7, 2015** 

Before: FISHER, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Dennis Perryman, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district

court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process

violations in connection with prison disciplinary proceedings. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Nev. Dep’t of Corr. v.

FILED

APR 15 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * 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).
Greene, 648 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th Cir. 2011), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Perryman’s due

process claim in connection with his disciplinary proceedings because, even

assuming a protected liberty interest, Perryman failed to raise a genuine dispute of

material fact as to whether defendants violated his due process rights. See Wolff v.

McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-67 (1974) (setting forth due process requirements

before imposing sanctions implicating a prisoner’s liberty interest); Koenig v.

Vannelli, 971 F.2d 422, 423 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam) (prison officials may limit

an inmate’s efforts to defend himself if they have a legitimate penological reason).

AFFIRMED.

2 14-35224
11 TH C OURT OF A PPEALS E ASTLAND
, T EXAS J UDGMENT

The University of Texas of * From the 358 th District Court the Permian Basin et al

. , of Ector County, Trial Court No. D

- 17

- 07

- 0777

- CV

.

Vs. No. 11

- 1 7

- 00 325

- CV * May 31 , 201 9

Michael Banzhoff

, * Memorandum Opinion by Bailey, C. J. (Panel consists of: Bailey, C. J., Willson , J., and Wright, S.C.J.

, sitting by a ssignment) (Willson, J.

, not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there

is error in the order below. Therefore, in accor dance with this court’s opinion,

we reverse the trial court’s order to the extent the trial court denied a plea to

the jurisdiction as to Michael Banzhoff’s abuse of process and ultra vires
claims, and we render judgment dismissing those claims for lack of
jurisdiction. In all other respects, the order of the trial court is affirmed. The
costs incurred by reason of this appeal are taxed against Michael Banzhoff.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kathleen Brown, Appellant.

—Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Friedmann, J.), rendered July 12, 1989, convicting her of murder in the second degree (two counts), attempted robbery in the first degree (two counts), and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and sentencing her to consecutive indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 25 years to life on the two counts of murder in the second degree, and concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 5 to 15 years on the two counts of attempted robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, to be served concurrently to the murder counts.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by providing that the terms of imprisonment imposed on the convictions of murder in the second degree shall run concurrently with each other and with the other terms of imprisonment; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court properly denied her request to charge the jury on the affirmative defense to felony murder under Penal Law § 125.25 (3). The record demonstrates that the defendant knew that her companions were armed with weapons and intended to commit a robbery of a store. Accordingly, the requirements of Penal Law § 125.25 (3) (c) and (d) were not met *(see, People v*
      *751
      *DiNicolantonio,*74 NY2d 856; *People v Pagan,*130 AD2d 687; *People v Pearson,*118 AD2d 737).

However, under the circumstances, the sentence imposed was excessive to the extent indicated. Kooper, J. P., Sullivan, Lawrence and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS RESTATED FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
EXTRACTED FROM THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY'S
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<CIK> 0000015511
<NAME> THE BURLINGTON NOTHERN AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                              20
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      683
<ALLOWANCES>                                        57
<INVENTORY>                                        222
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,216
<PP&E>                                          22,064
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,490
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  19,634
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,333
<BONDS>                                          4,337
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,964
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    19,634
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,108<F1>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,361<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 275
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,489
<INCOME-TAX>                                       570
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                919
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       919
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>RESTATEMENT REFLECTED HEREIN IS THE RESULT OF RECLASSIFICATIONS TO PRIOR 
PERIODS' FINANCIAL STATEMENTS TO CONFORM TO THE CURRENT PERIOD PRESENTATION.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of CB Richard Ellis Realty Trust (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Laurie Romanak, 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 Actof 2002, that: 

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934; and 

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and result of operations of the Company. 

 

December 7, 2006
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2008-1370

(Opposition No. 91/176,609)

HOLT’S COMPANY,

Appellant,

v.

VIRGIN ENTERPRISES LIMITED,

Appellee.

M. Kelly Tillery , Pepper Hamilton, LLP, of Philadelp hia, Pennsylvania, argued for

appellant.

James M. Dabney , Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson LLP, of New York,

New York, argued for appellee. With him on the brief were Victoria J.B. Doyle and

Mitchell Epner , and John F. Duffy , of Washington, DC.

Appealed from: United States Patent and Trademark Office

Trademark Trial and Appeal BoardNOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2008-1370

(Opposition No. 91/176,609)

HOLT’S COMPANY,

Appellant,

v.

VIRGIN ENTERPRISES LIMITED,

Appellee.



## Judgment

ON APPEAL from the United States Patent and Trademark Office

in CASE NO(S). 91/176,609.

This CAUSE having been hear d and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

Per Curiam (MAYER, CLEVENGER, and RADER Circuit Judges )

AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

DATED February 6, 2009 /s/ Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly, Clerk
#### In the Matter of Northern Westchester Hospital, Respondent, v David Axelrod, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health, et al., Appellants.

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York State Department of Health, dated December 3, 1986, which denied an application of the petitioner for an increase in its 1984 third-party reimbursement rates, the appeal is from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.), entered October 17, 1989, as annulled that determination and directed the appellants to recalculate the petitioner’s rates so as to account for the reasonable and necessary costs incurred by the petitioner in connection with its approved expansion project.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed *624from, with costs, for reasons stated by Justice Rosato at the Supreme Court. However, nothing contained therein shall prevent the appellants from applying the provisions of 10 NYCRR 86-1.17 (a) (4) as it existed prior to November 16, 1983, in determining the reimbursement rates herein. Kunzeman, J. P., Kooper, Sullivan and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 123 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 123

To authorize a pilot program under section 258 of the National Housing 
 Act to establish an automated process for providing additional credit 
  rating information for mortgagors and prospective mortgagors under 
                           certain mortgages.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2019

Mr. Green of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                  the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize a pilot program under section 258 of the National Housing 
 Act to establish an automated process for providing additional credit 
  rating information for mortgagors and prospective mortgagors under 
                           certain mortgages.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``FHA Additional Credit Pilot Program 
Reauthorization Act''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF PILOT PROGRAM.

    (a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 
shall establish and carry out the pilot program under section 258 of 
the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z-24), as amended by subsection 
(b) of this section.
    (b) Sunset.--Subsection (d) of section 258 of the National Housing 
Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z-24(d)) is amended by striking ``5-year period 
beginning on the date of the enactment of the Building American 
Homeownership Act of 2008'' and inserting ``14-year period beginning on 
the date of the enactment of the FHA Additional Credit Pilot Program 
Reauthorization Act''.
                                 <all>
```
J-S15038-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

TERRELL DARNELL SMITH

Appellant No. 1207 MDA 2014

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence June 17, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of York County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-67-CR-0005207-2013

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., WECHT, J., and JENKINS, J.

CONCURRING STATEMENT BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED APRIL 14, 2015

I agree with the majority’s decision to affirm the suppression court’s 

denial of Smith’s motion to suppress. 

Though mistaken, it was reasonable for Smith to believe he was being 

stopped when he saw emergency lights activated; that, however, did not 

necessarily transform the stop into an investigative detention. Smith 

remained stopped, even though the targeted car had pulled over behind 

him, about 9 car lengths, and the troopers both approached that car. It was 

not only reasonable at that point, but obligatory, for one of the troopers to 

approach Smith’s car and see why he pulled over, or why he remained 

stopped. See Commonwealth v. Conte, 931 A.2d 690, 693 (Pa. Super. 

2007) (police officers have duty to society to serve and protect their 

communities; this extends beyond enforcement of Crimes Code or Vehicle 
J-S15038-15

- 2 -

Code and includes duty to stop and help citizens who are, or appear to be, in 

distress). Thus, when Trooper Confer approached Smith, the interaction 

was a mere encounter. See Commonwealth v. Kendall, 976 A.2d 503 

(Pa. Super. 2009) (where defendant was driving slowly and then pulled car 

off to side of road after signaling, officer had affirmative duty to assure 

defendant was not in distress; interaction between officer and defendant was 

mere encounter requiring no level of suspicion and officer had every reason 

to pull over after defendant to offer assistance or at very least make sure 

there was nothing wrong). When Trooper Confer observed Smith’s 

bloodshot eyes and detected a strong odor of alcohol, the mere encounter 

was elevated to an investigative detention, and Trooper Confer was justified 

in administering field sobriety tests. 

I agree, therefore, that the trial court properly denied Smith’s motion 

to suppress. 

WECHT, J., Joins Concurring Statement

JENKINS, J., Joins Concurring Statement