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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WILMER GARCIA

- MORAN , AKA

Wilmer Garcia,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney

General,

Respondent. No. 15

- 73802

Agency No. A072

- 525

- 542

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 2 3 , 2017 **

Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Wilmer Garcia

- Moran, a native and citizen of Guatemala , petitions for

review of t he Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his a ppeal

from an immigration judge’ s decision denying his application for deferral of

removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is

* This disposition i s 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

OCT 31 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 73802

governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1 252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’ s

factual findings, Silaya v. Mukasey , 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008), and we

deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’ s denial of deferral o f removal

under CAT because Garcia

- Moran failed to establish it is more likely than not he

would be tortured by or with the consen t or acquiescence of the Guatemalan

government. See Zheng v. Holder , 644 F.3d 829, 835

- 36 (9th Cir. 2011) ( finding

that petit ioner’ s claims of possible torture were speculative and therefore did not

compel reversal).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Garcia

- Moran’s contention that he qualifies

for relief based on his Americanized appearance or manners because he failed to

present this claim to the BIA

. See Tijani v. Holder , 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir.

2010)

.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part

.
#### EASTERN COAL CORPORATION, Appellant, v. John ANDERSON et al., Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Feb. 25, 1966.

Baird & Hays, Pikeville, for appellant.

Combs & May, Pikeville, Stuart E. Alexander, Louisville, for appellees.

MILLIKEN, Judge.

This is a silicosis claim wherein appellee is claiming total and permanent disability as a result of silicosis. The trial court rendered a judgment upholding a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board awarding compensation, and the employer has appealed.

*734Appellee, John Anderson, filed this claim with the Workmen’s Compensation Board on January 8, 1964, alleging that he incurred pneumoconiosis (silicosis) while employed by the appellant Eastern Coal Corporation, and that as a result of this disease he is totally and permanently disabled. Appellee is forty-one years of age and has worked for the appellant intermittently since July 8, 1941. The last period of employment was from 1947 until August 27, 1963.

The medical evidence introduced before the Board consisted of the testimony of four doctors; it proved that the claimant has silicosis, the only question being the extent of disability caused by the disease, and the Board found him to be totally disabled solely by reason of silicosis and prorated the award on a 60-40 basis against the appellant and the Special Fund, respectively. The trial court sustained the Board on appeal and the trustees of the Special Fund did not appeal.

The appellant contends that the Workmen’s Compensation Board erred in finding appellee to be totally and permanently disabled on account of silicosis. The appellee had had a hip injury, and the appellant contends that this was the cause of his disability. The appellee admitted that pain from the leg was a factor in causing him to quit his work, but asserted that he had a growing difficulty in breathing which also made it difficult for him to work.

This Court on many occasions has held that if evidence upon which a compensation order is based is relevant and substantial, the finding of the Board will not be disturbed. J & R Coal Company v. Cortner (1964), Ky., 382 S.W.2d 875; Imperial Elkhorn Coal Company v. Newsome (1964), Ky., 382 S.W.2d 864. The employer contends that the award should have been prorated between the hip injury and silicosis, but we find no merit in this contention on the facts of this case. See Inland Steel Company v. Mosby (1964), Ky., 375 S.W.2d 268, where the claimant previously had received compensation for fifty per cent disability from an injury, subsequently filed a second claim against the employer for disability caused by silicosis, and the Board found him one hundred per cent disabled from silicosis without allowing any deduction for the previous disability.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### Hollis LACY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28285.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 25, 1956.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The offense is the unlawful transportation of whiskey, gin and beer in a dry area; the punishment, a fine of $250.

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bills- of exception. All proceedings are regular, and nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Curis, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended
September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Daniel R. Passeri, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(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: November 9, 2006



/s/    DANIEL R. PASSERIDaniel R. Passeri President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
| (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 the Company. |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|               |   |                                         |   |
|--------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------|--------|
| July 17, 2015 |   | /s/ Geert Kersten                       |   |
|               |   | Geert Kersten, Chief Executive and Principal |   |
|               |   | Financial and Accounting Officer             |   |
|               |   |                                         |   |
Exhibit 32.1

The following statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission solely for purposes of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 (18 U.S.C. 1349).

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC  20549

     Re:  Prologue

Ladies and Gentlemen:

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Prologue (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Kevin R. Keating, President-CEO 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 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 result of operations
     of Prologue as of September 30, 2003.


Date:  November 13, 2003      /s/ Kevin R. Keating
                              ________________________
                              Kevin R. Keating
                              President-CEO
                              (chief executive and financial officer)
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
                         -----------------------------

The Board of Directors
MeriStar Hospitality Corporation:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-60463) on Form S-8 (MeriStar Hospitality Corporation Incentive Plan), the
registration statement (No. 333-60465) on Form S-8 (MeriStar Hospitality
Corporation Non-employee Director's Incentive Plan), the registration statement
(No. 333-66229) on Form S-3, and the registration statement (No. 333-37888) on
Form S-8 (MeriStar Hospitality Corporation Employee Stock Purchase Plan) of our
report dated January 28, 2002, with respect to  the consolidated balance sheets
of MeriStar Hospitality Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2001 and
2000 and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholder's
equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended
December 31, 2001, and the related financial statement schedule, which report
appears in the December 31, 2001 annual report on Form 10-K of MeriStar
Hospitality Corporation.

/s/ KPMG LLP


Washington, D.C.
March 5, 2002
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

# **Co-Registrant(Commission File Number 000-30761):**

 

**UbiquiTelInc.**

**OneWest Elm Street**

**Suite 400**

**Conshohocken,Pennsylvania 19428**

 

**Co-Registrant(Commission File Number 333-39950):**

 

**UbiquiTelOperating Company**

**OneWest Elm Street**

**Suite 400**

**Conshohocken,Pennsylvania 19428**

 

# **CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED**

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

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofUbiquiTel Inc. and UbiquiTel Operating Company on Form 10-Q for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James J. Volk, ChiefFinancial Officer of UbiquiTel Inc. and UbiquiTel Operating Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)  The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)  The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of UbiquiTel Inc. and UbiquiTel Operating Company.

 
|     | UBIQUITEL INC.              |
|----------|-----------------------------|
|     |                        |
|     |                        |
| * * | */s/ James J. Volk*         | * * |
|     | James J. Volk               |
|     | Chief Financial Officer     |
|     |                        |
|     |                        |
|     | UBIQUITEL OPERATING COMPANY |
|     |                        |
|     |                        |
| * * | */s/ James J. Volk*         | * * |
|     | James J. Volk               |
|     | Chief Financial Officer     |
|     |                        |
|     |                        |
|     | November 8, 2005       |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7628

JAMES MATTHEWS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

LEVERN COHEN, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. 

(4:14-cv-04538-MGL)

Submitted: February 25, 2016 Decided: March 1, 2016

Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Matthew, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry, Assistant 

Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

James Matthews seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. 

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Matthews has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED 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 my 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 quarterly report is being prepared;(b)
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under my supervision, to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;(c)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report my 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(d)
    
    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 (the registrants
fourth quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
  (a)
    
    all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which
could adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial data and have identified for the registrants auditors any material weaknesses in
internal controls; and(b)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal controls.
  By:
    /s/ Tim BurroughsTim Burroughs, President
Principal Executive and Financial Officer 10
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Consolidated
Capital Properties V 1998 Year-End 10-KSB and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such 10-KSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000725614
<NAME> CONSOLIDATED CAPITAL PROPERTIES V
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           1,177
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      397
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          21,587
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,173
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   8,395
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                         10,988
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (3,305)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     8,395
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,458
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,589
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 813
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (131)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.73)<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 503 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 503

 To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to impose a moratorium on 
the listing of species as endangered or threatened and the designation 
of critical habitat in order to ensure that constitutionally protected 
   private property rights are not infringed, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 6, 1995

Mrs. Hutchison introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to impose a moratorium on 
the listing of species as endangered or threatened and the designation 
of critical habitat in order to ensure that constitutionally protected 
   private property rights are not infringed, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Endangered Species Listing 
Moratorium Act of 1995''.

SEC. 2. MORATORIUM ON DETERMINATION OF ENDANGERED SPECIES AND 
              THREATENED SPECIES AND DESIGNATION OF CRITICAL HABITAT.

    Section 4(a) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 
1533(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(4) Moratorium.--Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (3), 
        during the period beginning on March 7, 1995, and ending on 
        September 7, 1995, the Secretary may not--
                    ``(A) determine that a species is an endangered 
                species or a threatened species under paragraph (1); or
                    ``(B) designate habitat of a species to be critical 
                habitat under paragraph (3).''.
                                 <all>
```
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

.

R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit



## FILED

March 17, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-60849

Summary Calendar

JOSE JAVIER FUENTES-GONZALEZ,

Petitioner,

versus

JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

--------------------

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A76-836-429

--------------------

Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jose Javier Fuentes-Gonzalez petitions for review of an order

of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the Immigration

Judge’s decision to deny his application for can cellation of

removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act. He argues that

this court has jurisdiction to review the denial of his application

for cancellation of removal and that “the BIA failed to properly

consider facts bearing on [his] individual circumstances and failed

to state its reasons for its conclusory and generic decision.”2

We have previously approved of the BIA’s authority to affirm

the Immigration Judge’s decision without giving additional reasons.

See Soadjede v. Ashcroft

, 324 F.3d 830, 832 (5th Cir. 2003). When,

as in this case, the BIA affirms without opinion, this court has

jurisdiction to review the Immigration Judge’s determination that

the petitioner did not amass 10 years of continuous physical

presence in the United States as required for cancellat ion of

removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1129b(b)(1)(A). M ireles-Valdez v.

Ashcroft

, 349 F.3d 213, 215, 217 (5th Cir. 2003). The Immigration

Judge determined that Fuentes’ testimony regarding when he arrived

in the United States was not credib le. We will not disturb this

credibility determination. S ee Garcia-Melendez v. Ashcroft

,

351 F.3d 657, 662 (5th Cir. 2003). There was substantial evidence

to support the Immigration Judge’s determination that Fuentes did

not amass the 10 years of continuous physical presence in the

United States as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1129b(b)(1)(A).

We do not have jurisdiction to review the Immigration Judge’s

determination that Fuentes’ child ren would not suffer an

“exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” if they were deported

t o Mexico. S ee 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D); 8 U.S.C.

1252(a) (2)(B)(i); B ravo v. Ashcroft

, 341 F.3d 590, 592 (5th Cir.

2003). Accordingly, Fuentes’ petition for review is DENIED.