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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIO OROZCO GUTIERREZ,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 12-73504

Agency No. A090-723-035

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 13, 2015** 

Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Mario Orozco Gutierrez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of

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

FILED

MAY 29 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).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the

agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility

determinations created by the REAL ID Act, Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034,

1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination

based on the inconsistences between Orozco Gutierrez’s testimony and evidence

regarding the incidents his mother and relatives allegedly experienced in Mexico. 

See id. at 1046-47 (“when an inconsistency is at the heart of the claim it doubtless

is of great weight”). In the absence of credible testimony, Orozco Gutierrez’s

asylum, including humanitarian asylum, and withholding of removal claims fail. 

See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Orozco

Gutierrez’s CAT claim because he failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not

he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if

returned to Mexico. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 12-73504
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

Nos. 97-30139 & 97-30961 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus LARRY OCHSNER, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC Nos. 95-CV-3978-N & 89-CR-220-N

- - - - - - - - - - March 10, 1998 Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Larry Ochsner, federal prisoner # 19267-077, appeals from the district court’s denials of his motions to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and for reduction of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582. Ochsner argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for using and carrying a firearm in relation to a drug-trafficking offense in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bailey v. United States , 116 S. Ct. 501 (1995); that hisNo. 97-30139 No. 97-30961 -2- firearms conviction violated principles of double jeopardy because it was based upon a 21 U.S.C. § 846 conspiracy conviction; and that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion for reduction of sentence because U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 did not apply to his case. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, the judgments are AFFIRMED for essentially the reasons stated by the district
court. See United States of America v. Ochsner , No. 89-220 (E.D. La. Jan. 8, 1997); United States of America v. Ochsner , No. 89- 220 (E.D. La. Aug. 28, 1997).
Exhibit 32.2

     Certificate 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 Chestatee Bancshares, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Deborah
F. McLeod , Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 results of operations
          of the Company.



                                    /s/ Deborah F. McLeod
                                    ---------------------
                                    Deborah F. McLeod, Principal Financial
                                    and Accounting Officer
                                    (Principal Financial Officer)



August 14, 2003
|                                                                             
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                             
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                               
|View History: Annual                                                         
|View History: Annual                                                         
|View History:                                                                
|                                                                             
|Tennessee Natural Gas Total Liquids Extracted in Tennessee (Thousand Barrels)
|                                                                             
|                                                                             
|Tennessee Natural Gas Total Liquids Extracted in Tennessee (Thousand Barrels)
|                                                                             

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        | 343    | 340    | 281    | 252    | 210    | 199    | 163    | 10    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 5      | 11     | 11     |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
|                                                                                 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                 
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                   
|View History: Annual                                                             
|View History: Annual                                                             
|View History:                                                                    
|                                                                                 
|Mississippi Natural Gas Total Liquids Extracted in Mississippi (Thousand Barrels)
|                                                                                 
|                                                                                 
|Mississippi Natural Gas Total Liquids Extracted in Mississippi (Thousand Barrels)
|                                                                                 

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        | 350    | 359    | 365    | 257    | 201    | 25     | 5      | 4     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 3      | 3      | 1      |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
* Pursuant to 5 TH CIR

. 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 CIR

. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-30401 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee

v. KEITH RUSSART Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:04-CR-80-2
Before KING, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Keith Russartappeals his 48-month sentence imposed following hisguilty plea conviction for useofa communication facility in committing and facilitating the commission of a felony. Russart argues that the district court abused its discretion in departing upward from the sentencing guidelines range based on U.S.S.G § 5K2.1 and unreasonably deviated upward from the sentencing guidelines range in imposing a non-guideline sentence. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December 18, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-30401

2 In light of Russart’s reckless conduct resulting in the death of an individual and thefact that the applicable Guideline did not take the possibility of a death into account, the district court did not abuse its discretion in departing upward based on § 5K2.1. In departing up to the statutory maximum, the district court also properly gave consideration to factors that met the objectives of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including Russart’s need for educational and vocational training and alcohol and drug rehabilitation programs, his lack o f serious criminal history, and his recent drug use. U nited States v. ZunigaPeralta, 442 F.3d 345, 347 (5th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2954 (2006). Assuming that thedistrict court could alsomakea non-guidelines upward deviation at sentencing, the district court properly considered the relevant § 3553(a) factors, as stated above, and did not give significant weight to irrelevant factors. The sentence imposed did not reflect a clear error in judgment or an abuse of discretion by the district court and was reasonable under the circumstance of the case. The sentence is AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7762

DONALD L. SPENCER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus D. A. GARRAGHTY, Warden, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-97-509) Submitted: August 18, 1998 Decided: September 8, 1998 Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donald L. Spencer, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Spencer v. Garraghty , No. CA-97-509 (E.D. Va. Oct. 20, 1997). We deny Appellant’s motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 187 (Tuesday, September 26, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 57817]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-24596]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Office of Child Support Enforcement


Grant to the State of Wisconsin, Department of Workforce 
Development

AGENCY: Office of Child Support Enforcement, ACF, DHHS.

ACTION: Notice of award.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a noncompetitive grant award is 
being made to the State of Wisconsin Department of Workforce 
Development to further support their Child Support Demonstration 
Evaluation project. This project will continue the evaluation of the 
Wisconsin child support passthrough and disregard policy, through the 
analysis of a later cohort of participants, longer-term follow-up, and 
an evaluation of the impact of changes in the pass-through policy.
    This three-year project is being funded noncompetitively, because 
it is expected to provide valuable information useful to this 
Department and other practitioners regarding research and demonstration 
initiatives related to welfare reform, child support, and the well-
being of low-income children and families. Wisconsin will build on 
their work in the Child Support Demonstration Evaluation project and do 
an extensive analysis of the effects of passing through child support 
payments to families as well as the effects on child support 
enforcement performance. The cost of the project is $463,836 for three 
years. The period of this funding will extend through September 29, 
2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gaile Maller, Office of Child Support 
Enforcement, Administration for Children and Families, 370 L'Enfant 
Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447, Telephone: 202-401-5368.

    Dated: September 15, 2000.
David Gray Ross,
Commissioner, Office of Child Support Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 00-24596 Filed 9-25-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-01-M
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jorge Varona, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jerome Hornblass, J.), rendered February 1, 1989, convicting defendant, after trial by jury, of robbery in *323the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15) and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 3 to 9 years, is unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and the case remanded for a new trial.

Defendant’s conviction is reversed for the reasons set forth in the memorandum decision in the appeal of the codefendant Jerome Dudley (167 AD2d 317 [decided herewith]) with respect to the trial court’s refusal to permit defendants to offer expert testimony regarding the complaining witness’s mental capacity.

We find no merit in the remaining issues raised by this defendant, including the denial of his motion for a severance. Defendant failed to make the requisite showing with respect to potential exculpatory testimony by any of the codefendants and his speculative and conclusory assertions in that regard did not require the trial court to grant the severance sought. *(People v Bornholdt,*33 NY2d 75, 86-87, *cert denied sub nom. Victory v New York,*416 US 905.) Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Ross, Carro, Asch and Ellerin, JJ.
Exhibit 15.1  Acknowledgment of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm   Board of Directors and Stockholders Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation  We are aware of the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-______) of Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation of our report dated June 10, 2009 relating to the unaudited condensed consolidated interim financial statements of Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation that are included in its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended May 3, 2009.  New York, NY  June 29, 2009 /s/ Ernst & Young
## Protecting Outdoor Workers Exposed to Ticks
– NPMA Survey Results

Jim Fredericks National Pest Management Association

# NPMA Survey Results Do your workers come in contact with ticks while servicing customers? (n= 16)

If yes, do your workers know about Lyme disease? Yes
– 100%

# NPMA Survey Results Would you like to have information to provide to your employees about Lyme Disease? (n= 16)

# NPMA Survey Results Would you like to have more information to pass on to your customers about this disease? (n= 16)

# NPMA Survey Results Does your company treat properties for fleas and ticks? (n= 16)

# NPMA Survey Results What kind of information do you want for employees and customers? (n= 16)

# NPMA Survey Results The response level for this survey was unusually low. Typical response is 8

- 10%. Low response could indicate lack of concern or awareness. Those who did respond are aware of tick

- borne disease and want more information to educate workers and clients.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-20-00264-CV

Texas State Technical College

v.

John Clark Owen

On Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 3 of Cameron County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2019-CCL-00614

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed in part and reversed 

and rendered in part. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED IN 

PART and REVERSED and RENDERED IN PART. Costs of the appeal are adjudged 

against appellee.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

April 22, 2021
Exhibit 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



|                                              |  |                                                           
|--------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------
|SUBSIDIARIES AND AFFILIATES OF REGISTRANT     |  | STATE OR OTHER JURISDICTIONOF INCORPORATION ORORGANIZATION
|Chaparral (Virginia) Inc.                     |  | Delaware                                                  
|American Materials Transport, Inc.            |  | Delaware                                                  
|1201/5400 Elm Corporation                     |  | Delaware                                                  
|Chaparral Steel Investments, Inc.             |  | Delaware                                                  
|Chaparral Steel Holdings, LLC                 |  | Delaware                                                  
|Chaparral Steel Trust                         |  | Delaware                                                  
|Chaparral Steel Texas, LLC                    |  | Delaware                                                  
|Chaparral Steel Midlothian, LP (1)            |  | Delaware                                                  
|Chaparral Star Recycling LP (1)               |  | Delaware                                                  
|Aceros Chaparral, S. de R. L. de C. V. (2)    |  | Mexico                                                    
|Servicios Chaparral, S. de R. L. de C. V. (3) |  | Mexico                                                    

---

Indirect subsidiaries of Registrant are indented and
listed following their direct parent company.

|(1) | Delaware limited partnership: Chaparral Steel Texas, LLC, general partner; Chaparral Steel Trust, limited partner.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|(2) | Mexico limited liability company: Chaparral Steel Investments, Inc. and Chaparral Steel Midlothian, LP, owners.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|(3) | Mexico limited liability company: Aceros Chaparral, S. de R. L. de C. V. and Chaparral Steel Midlothian, LP, owners.
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------