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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CONGLIN ZHONG,

Petitioner,

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 14

- 73315

Agency No. A205

- 177

- 113

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 26, 2016 **

Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN , Circuit Judges.

Conglin Zhong , a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the

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

judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal.

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

* This disposition is 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

AUG 2 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 14

- 73315

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

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

1039

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

.

Substantial evidence does not support the agency’s credibility determination,

because the agency relied on inconsistencies not supported by the record, s ee Ren

v. Holder , 648 F.3d 1079, 1087 (9th Cir. 2011 ), and failed to address Zhong’s

explanations for an inconsistency as to the number of children he had in China, see

Lai v. Holder , 773 F.3d 966, 970 (9th Cir. 2014). Further, the “omission” the

agency relied on is not a specific and cogent reason to find Zhong not credible

under the totality of the circumstances. See Lai , 773 F.3d at 970

- 76. Thus , we

grant Zhong’ s petition for review and remand his asylum and withholding of

removal claims

, on an open record

, for further proceedings consistent with this

disposition. See INS v. Ventura , 537 U.S. 12, 16

- 18 (2002) (per curiam); S oto

Olarte v. Holder , 555 F.3d 1089, 1095 (9th Cir. 2009).

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED

.
|                                                                      
|----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                      
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                        
|View History: Annual                                                  
|View History: Annual                                                  
|View History:                                                         
|                                                                      
|Kentucky Shale Proved Reserves Revision Increases (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                      
|                                                                      
|Kentucky Shale Proved Reserves Revision Increases (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                      

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 44    
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 3      | 44     | 1      | 16     | 4      | 0      | 0      | W      | 0      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
#### NOBLES v. STATE.

No. 23549.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 15, 1947.

No appearance for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appellant was given a fine of $75 on a charge which probably attempted to invoke Section 1 of Article 567b of Vernon’s Ann.Penal Code. I quote from the brief of the State’s Attorney as follows:

> “The information alleges ‘that one Alvin Nobles, hereinafter styled Defendant, heretofore on or about the 20 day of Aug. 1945, in the County of Dallas and State of Texas, did unlawfully and with the intent to defraud Albert Reagan,

> “‘(a) Obtain from the said Albert Reagan certain (service), to-wit: Two Writ hearing & recovering certain property of the value of $35.00 Dollars, which said check was then and there of the tenor following :

> Dallas, Texas, Aug. 20, 1945 No..Mercantile National Bank

> Pay to the Order of Albert Reagan $35.00/100

> Thirty-Five and No/10Q Dollars.

> Alvin Nobles

with which said bank (person) (firm) (corporation) the defendant did not at the time said check (draft) was so given and drawn have sufficient funds to pay such check (draft) and all other checks and drafts upon said funds outstanding at the time said check (draft) was so given and drawn, Against the peace and dignity of the State.’ ”

The brief further says that the allegation in the complaint and information “seems to be ambiguous, uncertain, and incapable of an intelligent construction.” It is further observed that there is no allegation that the appellant gave or drew said check. He also observes that the proof is insufficient, and finds a fatal variance between the allegations and proof.

Our examination of the record leads us to concur with all of the observations of the State’s Attorney.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and it is directed that the prosecution be dismissed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Joaquin Concepcion, Respondent.

Appeal by the People, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Clabby, J.), dated June 27, 1989, as granted that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to dismiss the first count of the indictment.

Ordered that the order is modified by adding a provision that the dismissal of the first count of the indictment charging burglary in the second degree is without prejudice to the People to re-present that charge to another Grand Jury; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from.

*414We have reviewed the evidence which was before the Grand Jury and conclude that the first count of the indictment, charging the crime of burglary in the second degree, was not supported by legally sufficient evidence. In the context of a Grand Jury proceeding, the sufficiency of the People’s presentation is determined by inquiring into whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People, if unexplained and uncontradicted, would warrant conviction by a petit jury *(see, People v Jennings,*69 NY2d 103, 144; *People v Pelchat,*62 NY2d 97; *People v Flores,*122 AD2d 806).

Although the evidence presented to the Grand Jury established that shortly after the burglary, the defendant was observed in possession of two of the complainant’s radios in close proximity to the scene of the crime, the prosecutor failed to instruct the Grand Jury on the inference arising from the recent and exclusive possession of the fruits of a crime *(see, People v Galbo,*218 NY 283). Therefore, that inference was not considered by the Grand Jury in determining that a prima facie case of burglary in the second degree had been presented *(see, People v Bester,*163 AD2d 873; *People v Burnett,*149 AD2d 717; *People v Felder,*132 AD2d 705). Absent the inference, the proof presented was insufficient to establish that the defendant was the individual who committed the subject burglary, and thus the burglary count of the indictment was properly dismissed *(see, People v Whitfield,*158 AD2d 922; *People v Burnett, supra; People v Felder, supra).*Eiber, J. P., Harwood, Balletta and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1 Certification of CEO 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of VWR Funding, Inc. (the Company) for the
year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, John M. Ballbach, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to the § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to the best of my knowledge: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company. /s/ John M. Ballbach
Name: John M. Ballbach
Title: Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer Dated: March 30, 2009  1
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kevin Mitchell, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Juviler, J.), rendered April 30, 1987, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

We find that neither the complainant’s minor criminal history nor his consumption of alcoholic beverages during the night prior to the crime, which occurred about 5:00 A.M., rendered his identification testimony or account of the robbery incredible as a matter of law *(see, People v Bossett,*157 AD2d 734; *People v Baxter,*157 AD2d 788). These facts, as well as the complainant’s explanation for not immediately reporting the robbery to the police, presented a question of credibility to be resolved by the jury. Resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses *(see, People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see, People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental *pro se*brief, and find that they are either unpreserved for appellate review or are without merit. Sullivan, J. P., Miller, O’Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.
Arches/Canyonlands - Worst - Total Extinction Arches/Canyonlands - Worst - NO3 Extinction

Site Method Year N

Total

Extinction Site Method Year N

NO3

Extin

CANY1 NIA 2000 20 31.58 CANY1 NIA 2000 20 CANY1 NIA 2001 22 30.35 CANY1 NIA 2001 22 CANY1 NIA 2002 22 36.92 CANY1 NIA 2002 22 CANY1 NIA 2003 23 33.24 CANY1 NIA 2003 23 CANY1 NIA 2004 22 26.46 CANY1 NIA 2004 22 

158.55 Total 

31.71 Average 

2000-2004 Average Annual Nitrate Share of Particle Light Extinction 9%

Arches/Canyonlands - Best - Total Extinction Arches/Canyonlands - Best - NO3 Extinction

Site Method Year N

Total

Extinction Site Method Year N

NO3

Extin

CANY1 NIA 2000 19 14.42 CANY1 NIA 2000 19 CANY1 NIA 2001 21 15.12 CANY1 NIA 2001 21 

CANY1 NIA 2002 22 15.3 CANY1 NIA 2002 22 

NIA 2002 22 15.3 CANY1 NIA 2002 22 

CANY1 NIA 2003 22 13.99 CANY1 NIA 2003 22 CANY1 NIA 2004 21 14.31 CANY1 NIA 2004 21 

73.14 Total 

14.628 Average 

2000-2004 Average Annual Nitrate Share of Particle Light Extinction 4%
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4722 

To suspend temporarily the duty on mixtures of polyvinyl alcohol and polyvinyl 

pyrrolidone. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 25, 2012 

Mr. HOLT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on mixtures of polyvinyl 

alcohol and polyvinyl pyrrolidone. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MIXTURES OF POLYVINYL ALCOHOL AND POLY4 VINYL PYRROLIDONE. 

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: 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4722 IH

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Aqueous mixtures of polyvinyl 

alcohol (CAS No. 98002–48– 

3) and polyvinyl pyrrolidone 

(CAS No. 9003–39–8) (provided for in subheading 

3905.99.80) ........................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 

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 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
|                                                                                             
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                             
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                               
|View History: Annual                                                                         
|View History: Annual                                                                         
|View History:                                                                                
|                                                                                             
|Lower 48 States Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves New Field Discoveries (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                             
|                                                                                             
|Lower 48 States Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves New Field Discoveries (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                             

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 132   
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 124    | 481    | 55     | 191    | 164    | 20     | --     | --     | --     | --    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | --     | --     |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
##### 



Jurisdictionof IncorporationAltra Industrial Motion, Inc.
    
    DelawareAmerican Enterprises MPT Corp.
    
    DelawareAmerican Enterprises MPT Holdings LLC
    
    DelawareAmeridrives International LLC
    
    DelawareFormsprag LLC
    
    DelawareNuttall Gear LLC
    
    DelawareWarner Electric LLC
    
    DelawareWarner Electric Technology LLC
    
    DelawareBoston Gear LLC
    
    DelawareKilian Manufacturing Company
    
    Delaware3091780 Nova Scotia Company
    
    Nova Scotia, CanadaKilian Canada ULC
    
    Nova Scotia, CanadaWarner Electric International Holding, Inc.
    
    DelawareWarner Electric (Holding) SAS
    
    FranceWarner Electric Europe SAS
    
    FranceWarner Electric Group GmbH
    
    GermanyWarner Electric Verwaltungs GmbH
    
    GermanyStieber GmbH
    
    GermanyWarner Electric (Neth) Holding, B.V.
    
    NetherlandsWarner Electric Australia Pty. Ltd.
    
    AustraliaWarner Shui Hing Limited, (HK)
    
    Hong KongWarner Electric (Singapore), Ltd.
    
    SingaporeWarner Electric (Taiwan) Ltd.
    
    TaiwanWarner Electric (Thailand) Ltd.
    
    ThailandWarner Electric UK Group Ltd.
    
    United KingdomWarner Electric UK Holding, Ltd.
    
    United KingdomWichita Company Ltd.
    
    United KingdomHay Hall Holdings Limited
    
    United KingdomThe Hay Hall Group Limited
    
    United KingdomMatrix International, Ltd.
    
    United KingdomMatrix International GmbH
    
    GermanyInertia Dynamics, LLC
    
    DelawareBibby Group Ltd.
    
    United KingdomBibby Transmissions Ltd.
    
    United KingdomBibby Turboflex SA
    
    South AfricaTurboflex Ltd
    
    United KingdomTorsiflex, Ltd.
    
    United KingdomRathi Turboflex Pty Ltd
    
    IndiaHuco Power Transmission, Ltd.
    
    United KingdomHuco Engineering Industries Ltd.
    
    United KingdomDynatork Air Motors Ltd.
    
    United KingdomDynatork, Ltd.
    
    United KingdomTwiflex Ltd.
    
    United KingdomSafetek Ltd.
    
    United Kingdom
Exhibit 4.362

 

/Emblem of the Russian Federation/

 

FEDERAL SERVICE FOR SUPERVISION IN THE SPHERE OF COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND MASS MEDIA

 

LICENSE

 

No. 168623 dated December 30, 2018

 

For Rendering

 

mobile radio telephone services

 

This License is granted to

 

Public Joint Stock Company

 

Mobile TeleSystems

 

Primary State Registration Number of a Legal Entity 
 (Individual Entrepreneur) (OGRN, OGRNIP)

 

1027700149124

 

Tax Identification Number (TIN)

 

7740000076

 











 

Location address (place of residence):

 

4, Marksistskaya Str., Moscow, 109147

 

The territory covered by telecommunications services is specified in the Appendix.

 

This License is granted for a term:

 

until December 30, 2023.

 

This License is granted by decision of the licensing body - Order dated September 14, 2018 No. 660-рчс

 

Appendix being an integral part of this license is executed on 3 sheets.

 

	
Deputy Head
    	
 
    	
/signature/ A.A. Pankov
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Stamp here

Official   seal:
   MINISTRY OF TELECOM AND MASS
  COMMUNICATIONS
   OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
   FEDERAL SERVICE FOR SUPERVISION
   IN THE SPHERE
   OF COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION
   TECHNOLOGY
   AND MASS MEDIA
   PSRN 1087746736296
EXHIBIT 10.2

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS




Circle Group Internet Inc.
Mundelein, Illinois


We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form
10-SB of Circle Group Internet Inc. of our report dated May 22, 2001, relating
to the consolidated financial statements of Circle Group Internet Inc. as of
December 31, 2000 and for the year then ended.





/s/ McGladrey & Pullen, LLP


Chicago, Illinois
August 20, 2001
#### BAGLEY v. STATE.

No. 24377.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 11, 1949.

None on appeal for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

The offense is driving a motor vehicle upon a public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The punishment assessed is six months in the county jail and a fine of $250.00.

The record in this case is before us without any bills of exception or a statement of facts. Consequently, there is nothing presented for review. The complaint and information seem to be in due form.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
|                                                                
|----------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                  
|View History: Annual                                            
|View History: Annual                                            
|View History:                                                   
|                                                                
|Arkansas Shale Proved Reserves Acquisitions (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                
|                                                                
|Arkansas Shale Proved Reserves Acquisitions (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 774    | 6,220  | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 5,276  | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
#### BENTLEY v. COMMONWEALTH.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Oct. 17, 1952.

J. Ervin Sanders, P. H. Hyden, Pike-ville, for movant.

J. D. Buckman, Jr., Atty. Gen., opposed.

PER CURIAM.

Motion for an appeal from the Pike Circuit Court by Joe Bentley from a judgment convicting him of possessing alcoholic beverages for sale in local option territory and fixing punishment at thirty days in jail and $100 fine.

A consideration of the record discloses no error prejudicial to movant’s substantial rights and the judgment is affirmed.