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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RAFAEL ROBLEDO ARROYO, AKA

Rafael Arroyo, AKA Rafael Robledo,

AKA Maximilian Robledo Alvarado,

Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 14-72732

Agency No. A205-314-666

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 5, 2016** 

Pasadena, California

Before: PREGERSON and D.W. NELSON, Senior Circuit Judges, and OWENS,

Circuit Judge.

Rafael Robledo Arroyo (“Arroyo”), a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his

FILED

DEC 08 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* 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).
motion to reopen removal proceedings to apply for asylum, withholding of

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for

abuse of discretion, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and

we DENY the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen

because Arroyo failed to establish a prima facie case for the relief sought. See

Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2007) (“In order to prevail on his

motion to reopen the proceedings on the basis of changed country conditions,

Toufighi needed to clear four hurdles: (1) he had to produce evidence that

conditions had changed in Iran; (2) the evidence had to be ‘material;’ (3) the

evidence must not have been available and would not have been discovered or

presented at the previous proceeding; and (4) he had to ‘demonstrate that the new

evidence, when considered together with the evidence presented at the original

hearing, would establish prima facie eligibility for the relief sought.’ The Board

could thus deny the motion to reopen for failing to meet any of these burdens.”)

(internal citations omitted); see also Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 986 (“The BIA can

deny a motion to reopen on any one of at least three independent grounds,”

including “failure to establish a prima facie case for the relief sought”) (citation

2
and internal quotation marks omitted). In light of this conclusion, we do not reach

Arroyo’s remaining contentions. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3
FEBRUARY CROP PRODUCTION

Executive Summary

February 9, 2012 8:30 AM

United States Department of Agriculture

National Agricultural Statistics Service
• Citrus Fruits

• Sugarcane

USDA-NASS 

02-09-12

Contents
USDA-NASS 

02-09-12

February 2012 Crop Production

Crop Unit

February

2012

% Change

from 

Previous

Forecast

% Change

from 

Previous

Season

Oranges Mil Tons 8.94 - 0.5 + 0.9

Grapefruit Mil Tons 1.13 - 1.8 - 10.4

Tangerines and 

 Mandarins Thou Tons 624 - 0.8 - 0.8

Sugarcane Mil Tons 28.6 + 1.3 + 4.7
USDA-NASS 

02-09-12

Upcoming Reports 

February 16 Crop Values

February 29 Agricultural Prices

March 9 Crop Production

March 15 Non Citrus Fruits and Nuts

March 29 Agricultural Prices

March 30 Prospective Plantings

Grain Stocks

Rice Stocks

Hogs and Pigs

United States Department of Agriculture

National Agricultural Statistics Service
#### New Castle Trust Company v. Fehl.

*Practice, C. P.*— Pleading—Promissory *notes*— Protest *notice*— Manner *of service*— Statement *of claim*— Act *of May U, 1915.*

1. It is not necessary, under the Practice Act of May 14, 191S, P. L. 483, to attach a copy of the protest notice to the statement of claim in a suit upon a promissory note.

2. The statement of claim must set forth the manner in which the notice of protest was served upon the defendant.

3. An averment in the statement of claim that “the defendant was duly notified on the 31st day of March, A. D. 1921, of the said protest,” is not sufficient.

Motion to strike off statement of claim. C. P. Bucks Co., Oct. T., 1921, No. 6.

*Hiram H. Keller,*for plaintiff; *Harry E. Grim,*for defendant.

Dec. 12, 1921.

Ryan, P. J.,

This is a suit on a promissory note against an endorser. The affidavit of, defence, which is in effect a demurrer, raises three objections to the sufficiency of the statement of claim, to wit: (1) That it does not set forth a copy of the protest notice; (2) that it does not set forth “the manner the notice of protest was served upon the defendant;” and (3) that the plaintiff is described as “a corporation of New Castle and the defendant is informed that New Castle does not have the authority to create corporations.” The first ground is not well founded. The copy of the notice of protest is merely evidence of the fact of protest and is not a note, contract or book account, copies of which alone are required to be attached to the statement by section 5 of the Practice Act of May 14, 1915, P. L. 483. The second ground must be sustained. The statement avers, *inter alia,*that “the defendant was duly notified on the 31st day of March, A. D. 1921, of the said protest,” etc. It is contended by the defendant that, as notice of protest may be given in several different ways under the Negotiable Instruments Act of May 16, 1901, P. L. 194, 208, the particular way in which notice was given should be stated. Such notice may be oral or written, may be given by the party holding the note or his agent, may be served by mail or personally, etc. As the statement must be self-sustaining, it should set forth a legal service of notice of dishonor in order to establish the liability of the endorser. The third ground set forth is trifling and captious and not entitled to consideration.

And now, to wit, Dec. 12, 1921, judgment is entered in favor of the defendant upon the second question of law raised by the affidavit of defence, and leave is given the plaintiff to amend in accordance with this opinion within ten days from this date, otherwise the statement to be stricken off.

From Calvin S. Boyer, Doylestown, Pa.
**Exhibit32.1**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OLXLEY ACT OF 2002

Inconnection with the annual report on Form 10-K of SPACEHAB, Incorporated (the “Company”)for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “report”), I, Thomas B. Pickens,III, 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 of2002, that to my knowledge:

(1)           the report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

(2)           the information contained in thereport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.
| /s/ Thomas B. Pickens, III                      |   |
|-------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Thomas B. Pickens, III, Chief Executive Officer |
| September 18, 2007                              |

 

The foregoingcertification is being furnished solely to accompany the report pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, as is not to be incorporated byreference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the datehereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

----
Indiana Department of Environmental Management 

Indiana Government Center North 

100 North Senate Avenu e 

Indianapolis, IN 46204 

Dear Mr. Baugues: 

Thank you for your September 16, 2015 recommendations regarding the attainment status areas in 

Indiana under the 2010 sulfur dioxide {S02) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). As you 

know, EPA is subject to a March 2, 2015 court order directing us to promulgate S02 designations for 

these areas under section 107 of the Clean Air Act by July 2, 2016. Specifically, we are required to 

promulgate designations for these areas because they contain sources meeting the S02 emissions 

criteria identified in the consent decree. The information you provided will greatly help us meet this 

duty, and ensure protection of public health in Indiana. 

In addition to the information you have provided, we have recently received modeling and related 

information from the Sierra Club that is relevant to a subset of the areas to be addressed by July 2, 2016. 

In your state, we have received information pertinent to the areas near the following power plants: 

Gibson, Clifty Creek, Rockport, and A.B. Brown. We are enclosing a digital video disc that contains this 

information. Please let us know if you have any questions about the information we have received or if 

you need any additional information. 

I am writing to solicit your review of the information that Sierra Club has provided, so that the EPA can 

base its designations decisions on the best available information. The Clean Air Act provides for 

designations to be developed through a partnership of state agencies and EPA, however we also believe 

it is important to consider significant and relevant information that members of the public provide to us. 

Consistent with the structure of the Clean Air Act, we believe that the best first step in addressing this 

information would be for your agency to provide its review of this information. Since the Sierra Club' s 

recommendations differ from your recommendation, we would welcome your commentary generally on 

the information as well your detailed review of the elements of Sierra Club's analysis. To the extent 

practicable, we would appreciate quantitative comparisons of data used in Sierra Club's analysis 

compared to the data used in your analysis, to help us evaluate the elements of the two analyses. 

We would appreciate your review of Sierra Club's information by November 17, 2015. Your timely 

review would provide us valuable assistance in our review of your designation recommendations and 

development of our intended designations, which we are aiming to complete by the end of January 

2016. We will then publish notice of our intended designations for public comment, and, as required by 

Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper (100% 
John Mooney U 

Air Programs Branch, Chief 

Enclosure
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Balance Sheet at April 2, 1998 and the Consolidated Statement of
Operations for the year-to-date period ended April 2, 1998 and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                APR-2-1998
<CASH>                                          31,532
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   56,103
<ALLOWANCES>                                    18,961
<INVENTORY>                                      6,362
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                96,272
<PP&E>                                       1,180,710
<DEPRECIATION>                                 283,779
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,063,440
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          103,461
<BONDS>                                        484,447
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            6,733
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           491
<OTHER-SE>                                     444,044
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,063,440
<SALES>                                         13,047
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               196,825
<CGS>                                           13,089
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  102,820
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,868
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,992
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,136
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,146
<INCOME-TAX>                                       403
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                618
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       618
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit
23.3






Consent
of Independent Accountants







We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement on Form
No. S-3 of PLX Technology, Inc., of our report dated February 26, 2009, relating
to the consolidated financial statements of Oxford Semiconductor, Inc., which
appears in the Current Report on Form 8-K/A of PLX Technology, Inc., dated March
18, 2009.  We also consent to the reference to us under the heading
“Experts”in
such Registration Statement.


/s/
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP




PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP


San Jose,
California


May 28,
2009
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 67 (Wednesday, April 8, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 18873]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08143]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Railroad Retirement Board


Sunshine Act; Notice of Public Meeting

    Notice is hereby given that the Railroad Retirement Board will hold 
a meeting on April 22, 2015, 10:00 a.m. at the Board's meeting room on 
the 8th floor of its headquarters building, 844 North Rush Street, 
Chicago, Illinois, 60611. The agenda for this meeting follows:
    Portion open to the public:
    (1) Executive Committee Reports
    The person to contact for more information is Martha P. Rico, 
Secretary to the Board, Phone No. 312-751-4920.

    Dated: April 6, 2015.
Martha P. Rico,
Secretary to the Board.
[FR Doc. 2015-08143 Filed 4-6-15; 11:15 am]
 BILLING CODE 7905-01-P
EXHIBIT 32.2(a)





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





(ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)





In connection with the periodic report of Dynegy Holdings Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Holli C. Nichols, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for the purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:





(1)
the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.





Date: May 10, 2010
By:
/s/    HOLLIC.NICHOLSHolli C. Nichols

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 13.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the annual report of Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group, Inc. on
Form 20-F for the year ended March 31, 2016 (the Report) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of
Title 18 of the United States Code.

I, Jun Ohta, Director of Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group, Inc., certify that, to the best
of my knowledge:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries.

Date: June 29, 2016



|             |  |         
|------------ |  | --------
|/s/ Jun Ohta
|Name:        |  | Jun Ohta
|Title:       |  | Director
#### Perry *v.*Carr.

A MU in equity must state a case upon which, if admitted by the answer, a decree can be made ; therefore a bill to redeem from a sale upon execution of a right of redemption, which contains no averment of readiness to pay and an offer to pay, is bad on demurrer, for want of equity.

The facts in this case sufficiently appear from the opinion of the court.

*A. S. Marshall,*for the plaintiff.

*W. H. Bartlett*and *E. B. S. Sanborn,*for the defendant.

Bellows, J.

This is a bill in equity to redeem a tract of land in HopMnton from a sale on execution of the equity of redemption, to the defendant, in May, 1859, and to compel the release to the plaintiff of the interest acquired by such sale. The bill alleges that the plaintiff, having acquired by deed the title of Bowers, the execution debtor, tendered to the defendant, November 29,1859, the amount of the purchase money and interest and reasonable charges, and demanded a release of his interest; to which the defendant demurs for want of equity, and in his argument assigns for cause that the bill does not allege that the plaintiff has always been ready and is still ready to pay the money tendered; and makes no offer to pay.

Upon examination, it appears that the bill contains no such allegations, and we are therefore of the opinion that the demurrer is well taken. In general, the plaintiff must state in his bill a case upon which, if admitted by the answer, or proved at the hearing, this court can make a decree. 1 Dan. Ch. Pr. 412. The right, title, or claim of the plaintiff should be stated with accuracy and clearness, so that the defendant shall be informed what he is to meet. *372Story Eq. Pl., secs. 240, 255, 257. "Where the plaintiff, in a bill to redeem, claimed under a levy of execution, but failed to state a return of the execution and record, on demurrer the bill was held to be defective. *Hobart*v. Frisbe, 5 Conn. 592; and see *Crocker*v. *Higgins,*7 Conn. 342. On a bill to enforce a reconveyance of land, it was held that the plaintiff should aver a readiness to pay the money. *Buffum*v. *Buffum,*11 N. H. 459. In *Frost*v. Flanders, 37 N. H. 547, *Perley,*C. J., holds that a bill to enforce a contract for the conveyance of land, when the plaintiff relies upon a tender of the price, should contain an offer to pay; and so in a bill or other proceeding to obtain a release, after tender of the appraised value of land set off on execution. In that case it is held that when an execution is extended upon land, and the debtor, in a writ of entry, relies on a tender to discharge the land from the extent, he must bring the amount tendered into court. Eor aught we can see, the case of a sale of the equity of redemption stands upon the . same footing, the provisions . for the redemption and release being substantially the same. The offer to pay the money tendered should therefore have been made in the bill, and the money brought into court, without which the plaintiff would not be entitled to a decree. The bill, therefore,

*Must be dismissed.*
EXHIBIT 32.1

                                  Certification
                Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
         of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of
                          Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of section 1350,  chapter 63 of title 18,  United States Code),  each of the
undersigned  officers of Bronco Energy Fund, Inc. (the  "Company"),  does hereby
certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

The Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 (the
"Form 10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the  requirements  of Section 13
(a) or  15(d)  of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of  1934,  and the  information
contained  in the Form 10-Q  fairly  presents,  in all  material  respects,  the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



                                         /s/ Daniel L. Hodges
Date: March 16, 2006                     ----------------------------
                                         Name:  Daniel L. Hodges

                                         Title: Chief Executive Officer

                                         /s/ James Marshall

Date: March 16, 2006                     ---------------------------
                                         Name:  James Marshall
                                         Title: Principal Financial Officer and
                                         Treasurer


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter
63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of a separate
disclosure document.

                                       20
Michigan Supreme

Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

February 10, 2015 

# Order

February 10, 2015

150215 ( 57 )

THERESA MODZELEWSKI

- SHEKOSKI, Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF MICHAEL

RAYMOND SHEKOSKI

, Plaintiff

- Appell ee
,

v

MICHAEL GARRETT BINDIG , and ALLIED
EXCAVATION, INC.

, Defendant s

- Appell ants

. SC: 150215

COA: 314830

Macomb CC: 2010

- 001959

- NI

________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion s of the defendants

- appellants to extend

the time to file their reply brief and to exceed the page limit of MCR 7.302(E) are

GRANTED. The 17

- page reply brief submitted on January 29, 2015, is accepted for filing.
Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 Corey Rinker
 
    
    the Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
78m or 78o(d)); and
    
    the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/  Corey RinkerCorey RinkerChief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Assistant Secretary  29
**Exhibit 10.2**

WRITTEN DESCRIPTION OF 

AMENDED ORAL AGREEMENT 

BETWEEN 

DR. DAVIDC. COLLINS AND 

LEARNING TREE INTERNATIONAL, INC. 

Dr. David C. Collins, formerly Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Learning Tree International, Inc. (the“Company”), has been Vice Chairman of the Board since 2007 with an annual compensation of one dollar per year plus Company-paid life insurance premiums for a special life insurance program. Dr. Collins provides advice on specialprojects as mutually agreed between him and the Company and oversees a charitable program with the concurrence of the Nominating and Governance Committee of our Board of Directors.