alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MOISES MORENO

- CRUZ, AKA Moises Moreno Cruz, Petitioner,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 17

- 72011 Agency No. A206

- 149

- 636

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 6, 2020 * * Before: BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges. Moises Moreno

- Cruz , a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is

* 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

MAY 11 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 17

- 72011

governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Garcia

- Milian v. Holder , 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey , 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft , 37 1 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency ’s conclusion that Moreno

- Cruz
failed to establish that he could not reasonably relocate within Mexico to avoid future persecution. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b) (2)

- (3); see also Gonzalez

- Medina v.
Holder , 641 F.3d 333, 338 (9th Cir. 2011) (petitioner failed to meet her burden of establishing it would be unreasonable for her to relocate)

. The BIA did not err in finding that Moreno

- Cruz failed to establish membership in a cognizable particular social group. See Barbosa v. Barr , 926 F.3d 1053, 1059

- 60 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding that individuals returning to Mexico from the United States who are believed to be wealthy does not constitute a particular social group)

. Thus,
Moreno

- Cruz’s withholding of removal claim fails

. Sub stantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Moreno

- Cruz failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or3 17

- 72011

with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico . See Zheng v. Holder , 644 F.3d 829, 835

- 36 (9th Cir. 2011) (possibility of torture too speculative). We lack jurisdiction to consider Moreno

- Cruz’s contentions regarding
substantial economic deprivation and a pattern or practice of persecution. See Barron v. Ashcroft , 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (the court lacks jurisdiction
to review claims not presented to the agency ). Finally, w e reject as unsupported by the rec ord Moreno

- Cruz’s contention s that the agency applied the incorrect legal standards to his claim s . PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part .
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                      13,151,379
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,887,459
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,980,351
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            23,097,267
<PP&E>                                      19,353,908
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             334,983,364
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,172,452
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                158,400,667
<COMMON>                                     5,581,485
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               334,983,364
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            26,741,121
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          10,099,843
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,957,597)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (1,795,192)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              8,265,479
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (12,427,884)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-92,328-01

EX PARTE CODY MOORE, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. W19-59388-K(A) IN THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 4

FROM DALLAS COUNTY 

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Applicant was convicted of attempted possession of a controlled substance and sentenced to

12 months’ imprisonment. Applicant filed this application for a writ of habeas corpus in the county

of conviction, and the district clerk forwarded it to this Court. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art.

11.07. 

On January 11, 2021, the State filed a response to the application and recommended granting

relief. However, the trial court did not enter findings of fact and conclusions of law or make any

recommendation. The record before us suggests that Applicant may be entitled to relief, either

because he is still detained or because he is on parole release from this sentence, but we are unable

to confirm Applicant’s status from this record.
The district clerk properly forwarded this application to this Court under Texas Rule of

Appellate Procedure 73.4(b)(5). However, the application was forwarded before the trial court made

findings of fact and conclusions of law. We remand this application to the trial court to make

findings of fact and conclusions of law.

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law within ninety days from

the date of this order. The district clerk shall then immediately forward to this Court the trial court’s

findings and conclusions and the record developed on remand, including, among other things,

affidavits, motions, objections, proposed findings and conclusions, orders, and transcripts from

hearings and depositions. See TEX.R.APP.P. 73.4(b)(4). Any extensions of time must be requested

by the trial court and obtained from this Court. 

Filed: April 14, 2021

Do not publish
Exhibit 10(ggg)

AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE  TO  THE ALPINE GROUP, INC.  SENIOR EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN  (Amended and Restated as of January 1, 2001)

WHEREAS,The Alpine Group, Inc. (the "Company") maintains The Alpine Group, Inc. Senior Executive Retirement Plan (Amended
and Restated as of January 1, 2001) (the "Plan");

WHEREAS,pursuant to Article 7 of the Plan, the Company may at any time amend the Plan; and

WHEREAS,the Company desires to amend the Plan.

NOW, THEREFORE,pursuant to Article 7 of the Plan, the Plan is hereby amended, effective as of November 30, 2001, as
follows:

1.    A
new Section 1.4 is added to the Plan to read as follows:



2.    A
new Section 5.5 is added to the Plan to read as follows:



3.    A
new Section 5.6 is added to the Plan to read as follows:



---



4.    A
new Article 9 is added to the Plan to read as follows:



2

---



3

---



QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,777
<SECURITIES>                                     4,017
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,878
<PP&E>                                           1,413
<DEPRECIATION>                                     914
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   6,449
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              180
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,262
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     6,449
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,235
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   1
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,153)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,153)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,153)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.14)
        

</TABLE>
----

(2004/C 70 E/015)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3614/02

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 December 2002)

Subject:   Imports of raw materials from Morocco and the European leather industry

In view of the fact that the European leather industry is having great difficulty in importing hides from Morocco, what action is the Commission taking (or is it intending to take) under the EU-Morocco Association Agreement in order to remedy this state of affairs, which is seriously affecting the industry and undermining the competitiveness of the businesses working within it?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2003)

The Commission is fully aware of the impact of export restrictions applied by Morocco on raw material available to the Union industry. The Commission has attracted the attention of the Moroccan authorities to this fact and to the provisions of the Association Agreement between Morocco and the Community. According to this agreement, there should be no quantitative restriction in trade (export and import) between both parties.

Moreover, the Moroccan authorities have mentioned that export restrictions were instaured following a huge increase in their export of raw hides as a consequence of the major epidemics in the cattle worldwide. They also mentioned that this surge in demand led to a critical shortage of raw material for their domestic industry.

Representations have been made to Morocco in this regard but so far without any significant change or elimination of the export restrictive measures. The Commission will look into the market and supply situation of the products in question with European industry to verify to what extent the Moroccan allegations of short supply can be corroborated on the basis of a factual analysis. Obviously, the burden of proof to demonstrate that a shortage of supply exists is incumbent on the Moroccan side. The question will then be raised during the next Association Council due to take place by the end of February 2003, where the Commission will consider the possibility of invoking the provisions of the Association Agreement with Morocco to seek redress of the situation.

----
* 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 December 17, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-40558 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus HUMBERTO LOPEZ-CRUZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:04-CR-44-ALL

-------------------- Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Humberto Lopez-Cruz (“Lopez”) pleaded guilty to illegally re-entering the United States after having been deported and after having been convicted of an “aggravated felony,” a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b). The district court sentenced him to 66 months in prison and to three years of supervised release. For the first time on appeal, Lopez argues that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is unconstitutional under Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530No. 04-40558 -2- U.S. 466 (2000), because it does not require the fact of a prior felony or aggravated-felony conviction to be charged in the indictment and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. As Lopez concedes, this argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), and Almendarez-Torres was not overruled by Apprendi

. See United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). Lopez also argues that the Supreme Court’s holding in Blakely v. Washington , 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), should be applied to sentences determined under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. He concedes that this argument is foreclosed by this court’s recent opinion in United States v. Pineiro , 377 F.3d 464, 465 (5th Cir. 2004), petition for cert. filed (U.S. July 14, 2004) (No. 04-5263), but he raises it to preserve it for possible further review.
AFFIRMED.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 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 on Form 10-Q of Spanish
Broadcasting System, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended March 31,
2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Raúl Alarcón, Jr., Chairman of the Board of Directors,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act 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/   Raúl Alarcón, Jr.Raúl Alarcón, Jr.May 10, 2004
    Chairman of the Board of Directors,
President and Chief Executive
Officer This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
From: Barnett, Keith

Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 1:58 PM

To: Land, Eva

Cc: Teal, Kim

Subject: RE: Emission Calculations for Airless and Air Assisted Spray Guns

Attachments: autbody.pdf

Dear Eva:

I apologize for taking so long to respond to this – my technical expert has been on sick leave and tired up 

in a rulemaking with a court ordered deadline.

A quick review of the information you sent implies that you were correct that the fallout factor looks too 

high. My understanding is that a fallout factor represents the amount of coating solids that end up on 

the part, the floor, the spray gun operator, the walls, ceiling, etc. A fallout factor of 98.56 implies that 

only 1.44 percent of the sprayed solids exit the spray both. That seems very high based on a 

conversation with Kim Teal (my coatings expert). 

I have attached a document that explains fall out factors in more detail and has recommended values 

(see page 12). I noticed that you can have values as high as 91 percent based on this reference – but the 

factor is very much influenced by the type of spray gun and the type of spray booth.

Hope this helps.

Keith Barnett

Group Leader

Minerals and Manufacturing Group

919-541-5605

From: Land, Eva 

Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 4:21 PM

To: Barnett, Keith

Cc: King, Melanie

Subject: RE: Emission Calculations for Airless and Air Assisted Spray Guns

Here is a better electronic version. The emission calculations are on page 98, Appendix B.

Eva Land

Air Permits Section

EPA - Region 4

61 Forsyth St., SW

Atlanta, GA 30303

Phone: 404-562-9103

From: Barnett, Keith 

Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 3:24 PM

To: Land, Eva
Cc: King, Melanie

Subject: Emission Calculations for Airless and Air Assisted Spray Guns

The person who normally answers these questions is out on extended sick leave – I am checking to see 

who else may have knowledge. Could you send the interesting calculations?

Keith Barnett

Group Leader

Minerals and Manufacturing Group

919-541-5605

From: King, Melanie 

Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 1:37 PM

To: Land, Eva; Barnett, Keith

Subject: RE: Personnel Question

We probably do within our division, but I don’t think anyone in my group does. Keith, do you have 

someone in your group that might have this expertise, or know who in SPPD would?

Melanie 

From: Land, Eva 

Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 1:33 PM

To: King, Melanie

Subject: Personnel Question

Hey Melanie,

I am working on a permit application that has some interesting emission calculations for their painting 

operations. I was wondering if you know someone in your section that has a lot of knowledge about 

calculating emissions from airless and air assisted spray guns?

Thanks. 

Eva Land

Air Permits Section

EPA - Region 4

61 Forsyth St., SW

Atlanta, GA 30303

Phone: 404-562-9103
# Official Journal C 26A/2014

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.CA2014.026.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 26A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5729 January 2014 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.CA2014.026.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 26A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5729 January 2014

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Parliament |
| 2014/C 026A/1 | Recruitment notice PE/174/S | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Parliament

2014/C 026A/1

Recruitment notice PE/174/S

1

---

REVIEW OF COMPETITION C A OJs

Please find below the list of C A published during the present year.

Unless otherwise indicated, OJs are published in all language versions.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 6 | |
| 11 | |
| 19 | |
| 21 | |
| 26 | |

5

6

11

19

21

26

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JORDAN ANTHONY BATTY,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 57 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 1st day of September, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
<Page>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                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 Alderwoods Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the sixteen weeks ended October 4, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), each of the undersigned officers of the Company certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such officer's 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 as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.


Dated: November 12, 2003

                                                /s/ Paul A. Houston
                                                -----------------------------
                                                Paul A. Houston
                                                Chief Executive Officer
                                                and Director
                                                (Principal Executive Officer)


                                                /s/ Kenneth A. Sloan
                                                -----------------------------
                                                Kenneth A. Sloan
                                                Executive Vice President,
                                                Chief Financial Officer
                                                (Principal Financial Officer)