alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

SHIRLETTA SALES,

Plaintiff,
Case No. 3:18-cv-158

JUDGE WALTER H. RICE

v.
| SUPPLY CO., et a/.,
Defendants.

DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DOC. #11);
OVERRULING AS MOOT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO REFILING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. #5)

Based on the reasoning and citations of authority set forth by Magistrate
Judge Michael Newman, in his Report and Recommendation, Doc. #1 1, as well as
upon a thorough de novo review of this Court's file and the applicable law, the
Court ADOPTS said judicial filing, and OVERRULES AS MOOT WITHOUT
PREJUDICE TO REFILING Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Doc. #5.

Although Plaintiff was notified of her right to file Objections to the Report
and Recommendation, and of the consequences of failing to do so, no Objections

were filed within the time allotted.


Date: August 6, 2018 the :

WALTER H. RICE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
<PAGE>
                  EXHIBIT 23 - CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of
SED International Holdings, Inc. listed below of our report dated October 11,
2002, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of SED International
Holdings, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-k) for the year ended June
30, 2002.

-     Registration Statement No. 333-47172 on Form S-8 pertaining to the 1999
      Stock Option Plan

-     Registration Statement No. 333-44103 on Form S-8 pertaining to the 1997
      Stock Option Plan

-     Registration Statement No. 333-35055 on Form S-8 pertaining to the
      Southern Electronics Corporation 1997 Stock Option Plan

-     Registration Statement No. 33-64133 on Form S-8 pertaining to the Southern
      Electronics Corporation 1991 Stock Option Plan

-     Registration Statement No. 33-64135 on Form S-8 pertaining to the Southern
      Electronics Corporation 1995 Formula Stock Option Plan

                                                 /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Atlanta, Georgia
October 11, 2002
Case: 3:18-cv-00177-WHR-MJN Doc #: 55-7 Filed: 07/19/19 Page: 1 of 2  PAGEID #: 423

Case: 3:18-cv-00177-WHR-MJN Doc #: 55-7 Filed: 07/19/19 Page: 2 of 2  PAGEID #: 424
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).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HAROLD HARVEY HAWKS,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

ANTHONY KANE; ARNOLD

SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor;

BOARD OF PRISON TERMS,

 Respondents - Appellees.

No. 06-17383

D.C. No. CV-05-02853-JSW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 2, 2011** 

Before: RYMER, IKUTA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Harold Harvey Hawks appeals pro se from the

district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

FILED

AUG 05 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 06-17383

Hawks contends that the Board of Prison Terms’ 2003 decision to deny him

parole was not supported by “some evidence” and therefore violated his due

process rights. The only federal right at issue in the parole context is procedural,

and the only proper inquiry is what process the inmate received, not whether the

state court decided the case correctly. See Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S. Ct. 859, 863

(2011) (per curiam). Hawks raises no procedural challenges, so his claim is not

cognizable. 

Hawks contends that the parole regulation set forth in section 2402(c)(1) of

the California Code of Regulations is unconstitutionally vague. The state court’s

rejection of this claim was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of,

clearly established federal law because the regulation is not “too vague to provide

any guidance.” Arave v. Creech, 507 U.S. 463, 471 (1993); see also Hess v. Bd. of

Parole and Post-Prison Supervision, 514 F.3d 909, 913 (9th Cir. 2008) (“The Due

Process Clause does not require the same precision in the drafting of parole release

statutes as is required in the drafting of penal laws.”). 

Hawks also contends that the Board’s denial of parole violated his rights

under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), or Blakely v. Washington, 542

U.S. 296 (2004). The state court’s rejection of this claim was neither contrary to,

nor an unreasonable application of, federal law because the Board did not increase
3 06-17383

Hawks’ sentence beyond the statutory maximum of life imprisonment for his crime

of second degree murder. 

Hawks’s motion for judicial notice is denied.

AFFIRMED.
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).

AK/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

JEFFERY MARSHALL,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 09-30070

D.C. No. 4:08-CR-00119-SEH

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 15, 2009** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. 

Jeffery Marshall appeals from the 200-month sentence imposed following

his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute

FILED

JAN 11 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
AK/Research 2 09-30070

methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Marshall contends that the within-Guidelines range sentence is substantively

unreasonable because the district court’s application of the career offender

enhancement over-represented the seriousness of his past offenses. The record

reflects that the district court gave thorough consideration to Marshall’s arguments

in support of his request for a sentence below the Guidelines range, but found the

circumstances insufficient to warrant such a sentence. Furthermore, the district

court conducted a reasoned and thorough analysis of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

factors prior to imposing a sentence toward the lower end of the advisory

Guidelines range. Accordingly, the sentence imposed is substantively reasonable. 

See United States v. Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988, 999-1002 (9th Cir. 2008).

AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO****18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

          In connection with the Annual Report of SED International Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission (“SEC”) on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jean Diamond, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, as amended; and 

          (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

     A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request. 

Dated: September 29, 2008
Exhibit 99.1

BERNARDO VILLEGAS PEREZ

 Contador Publico
 Matricula 4962A

   November 20, 1997

  America International Petroleum Corporation
  Board of Directors
  444 Madison Avenue
  Suite 3203
  New York, New York 10022

  Via: Fax 212-688-6657
       Overnight Service


  Board of Directors of American International Petroleum Corp:


  In reference to my auditor's report dated March 15, 1996 on the
  financial statements of the Colombian Branch of American International
  Petroleum Corporation of Colombia as of and for the year ended December 31,
  1995, I conducted my audit work in accordance with U.S. auditing standards.



  Respectfully,


  (Signature of Bernardo Villegas Perez)

  BERNARDO VILLEGAS PEREZ
  Auditor
  Professional Card No. 4962-A
  November 20, 1997


                         Carrera 15 No. 95-15 (Piso 4)
                     Telefono: 6101724  Celular 93-2291573
* This panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. SeeFed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### May 27, 2010 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. FELIX ZACAPALA-DIAZ, Defendant-Appellant. No. 10-4065 (D.C. No. 2:09-CR-00717-TS-1) (D. Utah)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before KELLY , HARTZ , and TYMKOVICH , Circuit Judges.

Felix Zacapala-Diaz pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to manufacturing a controlled substance by cultivation in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The district court sentenced him to 120 months of imprisonment, the mandatory minimum sentence. Although Mr. Zacapala-Diaz’s plea agreement included a waiver of his right to appeal his sentence, he has filed an appeal-2- seeking to challenge his sentence. The government has filed a motion to enforce the appeal waiver, citing United States v. Hahn , 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam). In determining whether an appeal should be dismissed based on an appeal waiver, we consider “(1) whether the disputed appeal falls within the scope of the waiver of appellate rights; (2) whether the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellate rights; and (3) whether enforcing the waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice.” Id. at 1325. Mr. Zacapala-Diaz concedes that his appeal is within the scope of the appellate waiver, he knowingly and voluntarily entered his plea, and the record does not disclose a reasonable basis for concluding that enforcing the plea waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice. Upon review of the plea agreement and plea and sentencing hearing transcripts, we conclude that Mr. Zacapala-Diaz cannot establish any of the applicable exceptions to enforcement of the appeal waiver and therefore the appeal waiver should be enforced. Accordingly, we GRANT the government’s motion to enforce the appeal waiver contained in the plea agreement and DISMISS the appeal.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT PER CURIAM
U

. S

. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

PUBLIC MEETING ON TEST PROCEDURE SNOPR FOR RESIDENTIAL

CLOTHES DRYERS AND ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20585

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

9 a.m.

– 3 p.m. ET, Room 1E

- 245

Purpose

During this meeting the Department of Energy (DOE) will present the supplemental

notice of proposed rulemaking on test procedures for residential clothes dryers and room

a ir conditioners in standby mode, off mode , and active mode . This meeting is intended to

familiarize interested stakeholders with DOE’s statutory requirements and proposed test

procedures.

Agenda

9:0 0

- 9: 20 am Welcome, Attendee Introductions , and Agenda Review

Doug Brookman

9: 20

- 9: 45 am Introduction and Regulatory Overview

Margaret Sullivan

9: 45

- 10: 1 0 am Covered Products; Standby/Off Mode: Incorporating

by Reference IEC 62301

James Battaglia

10: 10

- 1 0 : 45 a m Standby/Off Mode: Determination of Modes to be

Incorporated, Added Specifications to the Test Method

and Measurements

James Battaglia

1 0 : 45

- 11: 00 am Break

11: 00

- 1 1 : 30 am Standby/Off Mo de: Calculation of Energy Use,

Measures of Energy Consumption

James Battaglia

1 1 : 3 0 am

- 1 2 :00 pm Active Mode: Dryer Automatic Cycle Termination

James Battaglia

12:00

- 1:00 pm Break for Lunch (on your own)

1 :00

- 1:30 pm Active Mode: Vent

- less Dryers, Detergent Specifications

for Dryer Test Cloth Preconditioning

James Battaglia1:30

- 2: 00 pm Active Mode: Changes to Reflect Consumer Usage

Patterns and Capabilitie s

James Battaglia

2: 00

- 2 : 30 pm Active Mode: Room Air Conditioner and Dryer

Referenced Test Procedures, Technical Correction for

Gas Dryers, Clarification to Dryer Gas Supply

Conditions

James Battaglia

2 : 30

- 3: 00 pm Compliance with EPCA; Requirements; Effects of Test

Procedure Revisions on Compliance with Standards

James Battaglia

3 : 0 0 pm Closing Remarks and Adjourn

Margaret Sullivan
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-20559

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JAMAL KHATTAB,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:12-CR-514-1

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Jamal Khattab has moved for leave 

to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Khattab has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the 

relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s 

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 

* Pursuant to 5TH 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 21, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-20559 Document: 00513012832 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/21/2015
No. 14-20559

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is 

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

 Case: 14-20559 Document: 00513012832 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/21/2015
Edith RENFROE, Appellant, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, et al., Appellee.

No. 1D17-3038

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 6, 2018 Rehearing Denied April 6, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 23.1

            Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


We consent to the use of our report dated  December  28,  2004,  relating to the
consolidated  financial  statements of ERHC Energy,  Inc. (the  "Company") as of
September  30, 2004 and for each of the two years in the period ended  September
30, 2004, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of ERHC Energy, Inc. as of
September 30, 2005.


/s/ PANNELL KERR FORSTER OF TEXAS, P.C.
---------------------------------------
Houston, Texas
April 13, 2006
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

PATRICIA BRITTAIN AKA PATRICIA

MAINES, ADMINISTRATOR OF ESTATE

OF BARBARA ANN MAINES,

 Respondent

 v.

HOPE ENTERPRISES FOUNDATION

INCORPORATED, AND/OR HOPE

ENTERPRISE INC. AND/OR WILLIAM

BIRT, HEATHER PETERS, AND/OR

SELECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY OF

AMERICA,

 Petitioners

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 498 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

PATRICIA BRITTAIN AKA PATRICIA

MAINES, ADMINISTRATOR OF ESTATE

OF BARBARA ANN MAINES,

 Respondent

 v.

HOPE ENTERPRISES FOUNDATION

INCORPORATED, AND/OR HOPE

ENTERPRISE INC. AND/OR WILLIAM

BIRT, HEATHER PETERS, AND/OR

SELECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY OF

AMERICA,

 Petitioners

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 499 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER
[498 MAL 2014 and 499 MAL 2014] - 2

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 21st day of January, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED. Further, Petitioners’ Application for Leave to File Reply in Further Support

of Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED.
### -84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72 -70

34 36 38 40 

## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 

### 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 05/31 

## NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

# Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 31 May 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.86 N 77.06 WMeters AGL 

## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■



## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■ 

## ★ ● ● ● ●



## ★ ● ● ● ●
EX-10.34.2






Exhibit 10.34.2




CONFIDENTIAL

EXECUTION COPY




Amendment Number Two to Visteon Salaried Employee Transition Agreement




     The Visteon Salaried Employee Transition Agreement dated as of October 1, 2005 by and between
Ford Motor Company, a Delaware corporation, (“Ford”) and Visteon Corporation, a Delaware
corporation (“Visteon”) (the “Agreement”), as amended by Amendment Number One to Visteon Salaried
Employee Transition Agreement dated effective as of March 1, 2006, (the “Agreement”) is hereby
further amended effective as of January 1, 2008 as follows:




	1.	 	Article 7, Section 7.04 is hereby amended in its entirety and restated to provide as
follows:
	 
	 	 	“Section 7.04. The provisions of Section 2.06 shall apply except that to the extent that
Visteon rolled into an Additional Visteon Salaried Employee’s base salary a car allowance
effective January 1, 2006 (“Visteon Car Allowance”), Ford shall reduce the starting Ford
base salary by the amount of the Visteon Car Allowance. For any Additional Visteon Salaried
Employee who transfers to Ford on or after January 1, 2008, Ford shall not reduce the
starting base salary by the Visteon Car Allowance.”
	 
	2.	 	Article 7, Section 7.06 (ii) is hereby amended in its entirety and restated to provide as
follows:
	 
	 	 	“(ii) For purposes of Section 4.03, the amount of the Visteon Car Allowance provided to
an Additional Visteon Salaried Employee on or after January 1, 2006 will be deducted from the
Ford base salary effective on the Employment Date and the Additional Visteon Salaried
Employee shall be administered in accordance with the terms of Section 4.03. For any
Additional Visteon Salaried Employee who transfers to Ford on or after January 1, 2008, Ford
shall not reduce the starting base salary by the Visteon Car Allowance and such employee
shall be eligible to commence participation in the management vehicle lease program to the
extent otherwise eligible thereunder.”
	 
	3.	 	Except as otherwise specifically modified hereby, the Visteon Salaried Employee
Transition Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.






[signatures appear on following page]





 









 








CONFIDENTIAL

EXECUTION COPY




     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Ford and Visteon have caused this Agreement to be executed in multiple
counterparts by their duly authorized representatives.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	FORD MOTOR COMPANY	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Louis J. Ghilardi	 	 
	 

	 	Name:
	 	 

Louis J. Ghilardi
	 	 
	 

	 	Title:
	 	Assistant Secretary	 	 
	 
	 

	 	Date:
	 	April 23, 2008	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	VISTEON CORPORATION	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Dorothy L. Stephenson	 	 
	 

	 	Name:
	 	 

Dorothy L. Stephenson
	 	 
	 

	 	Title:
	 	Sr. V.P., Human Resources	 	 
	 
	 

	 	Date:
	 	April 30, 2008	 	 







2
<PAGE>

                                                               Exhibit 10.41



                               LETTER AGREEMENT
                               ----------------

TERMINATION OF SUBLEASE
-----------------------

Upon the execution of this letter agreement, the sublease between Arista 
Investors Corp., a corporation having an office at 116 John Street, New York, 
New York (the "Sublessor"), and Arista Insurance Company, a New York 
corporation having an office at 116 John Street, New York, New York (the 
"Subtenant") for Storage Space #5 shall be terminated effective December 31, 
1996.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Letter Agreement has been duly executed on the day 
and year first hereinabove written.

                                       ARISTA INVESTORS CORP.

                                       By: /s/ Bernard Kooper
                                           ---------------------
                                           BERNARD KOOPER, PRESIDENT


                                       ARISTA INSURANCE COMPANY

                                       By: /s/ Stanley Mandel
                                           ---------------------
                                           STANLEY MANDEL, PRESIDENT




DATED: December 11, 1996
#### Isidoro SANDOVAL-SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 03-70958.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 12, 2004.*

Decided April 27, 2004.

*705Christopher J. Stender, Esq., Stender *&*Associates, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Phoenix, AZ, David V. Bernal, Attorney, Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, RYMER and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable *705for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Isidoro Sandoval-Sanchez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming, without opinion, an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for cancellation of removal for failure to establish ten years of continuous physical presence in the United States. We review the IJ’s findings of fact, including credibility findings, for substantial evidence and must uphold the findings unless the evidence compels a contrary result. *Singh-Kaur v. INS,*183 F.3d 1147, 1149-50 (9th Cir.1999). We deny the petition.

Sandoval-Sanchez contends that the IJ’s adverse credibility finding was irrational because he testified consistently with his wife concerning his trips to Mexico and the IJ found her testimony to be credible.

Regardless of whether Sandoval-Sanchez testified consistently with his wife concerning his trips outside of the United States, the IJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence because Sandoval-Sanchez did not testify consistently with his application concerning his place of residence between 1992 and 1994. *See id.*at 1152-53 (denying petition for review where applicant testified inconsistently). Moreover, Sandoval-Sanchez failed to submit adequate documentary evidence to account for his presence in the United States between October 6, 1991 and April 18, 1994. *Cf. Vera-Villegas v. INS,*330 F.3d 1222, 1234 (9th Cir.2003) (holding that inadequate documentary evidence did not bar application because oral and written testimony was otherwise sufficient).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.