alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Rene AYALA-FLORES, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 14-73099

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 *

FILED OCTOBER 3, 2017

Rene Ayalar-Flores, Tucson, AZ, pro se.

Hillary Gaston Walsh, Esquire, Apo, AP, for Petitioner.

Andrea Gevas, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Rene Ayala-Flores, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations, *Hernandez v. Mukasey,*524 F.3d 1014, 1017 (9th Cir. 2008), and review for'substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act, *Ren v. Holder,*648 F.3d 1079, 1083-84 (9th Cir. 2011). We grant the petition for review and remand.

Substantial evidence does not support the agency’s adverse credibility determination because it was based on inconsistencies that were trivial or unsupported in the record, and on other unsupported findings. *See Ren,*648 F.3d at 1089 (adverse credibility finding not supported under the totality of circumstances); *see also Rodriguez v. Holder,*683 F.3d 1164, 1173 (9th Cir. 2012) (BIA may not make its own factual findings). Further, Ayala-Flores demonstrated that incompetent translations occurred during his asylum hearing and that they prejudiced the outcome of his proceedings. *See Perez-Lastor v. INS,*208 F.3d 773, 780 (9th Cir. 2000) (incompetent translation claim requires a showing that “a better translation would have made a difference in the outcome of the hearing”) (internal citation omitted).

Thus, we grant the petition for review and remand Ayala-Flores’ asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims to the agency, on an open record, for further proceedings with this disposition. *See INS v. Ventura,*537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam); *see also Soto-Olarte v. Holder,*555 F.3d 1089, 1095 (9th Cir. 2009).

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Angel MASSAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-265

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 24, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. David BUCIO-MARTINEZ, also known as David Busio Martinez, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11749 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 24, 2017

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

David Bucio-Martinez, Pro Se

Before KING, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent David Bucio-Martinez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (6th Cir. 2011). Bucio-Martinez 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 *359the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 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.

*

 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.
EX PARTE Tina WYNN

(In re: Tina Wynn v. Deshante Steger)

2160511

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

April 6, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Exhibit
      23.1








Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm











The Board
of Directors and Stockholders


Natural
Gas Services Group, Inc.







We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form
S-8 (No. 333-147311 and No. 333-110954), and the registration statements
(No. 333-119502 and No. 333-122687) on Form S-3, of Natural Gas Services Group,
Inc. of our report dated March 5, 2008, with respect to the consolidated balance
sheets of Natural Gas Services Group, Inc. and Subsidiary as of December 31,
2006 and December 31, 2007 and the related consolidated statements of income,
stockholders’ equity and cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2005, 2006
and 2007, which report appears in the December 31, 2007 Annual Report on Form
10-K of Natural Gas Services Group, Inc.








/s/ Hein & Associates
LLP








Dallas,
Texas


March 5,
2008
Lamar COFFEY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0716

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 27, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied.

MORRIS, SLEET, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
Brian MARCHIONE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-0734

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 08, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
**EXHIBIT 99.03**INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ REPORT
To the Board of Directors and Shareholders ofThe Keller Manufacturing Company, Inc.Corydon, Indiana
We  have  audited  the   consolidated   financial   statements   of  The  KellerManufacturing  Company, Inc. (the  “Company”)  as of December 31, 2002and 2001, and for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2002,and have issued our report  thereon  dated  February  19, 2003;  such  financialstatements  and report are included in your 2002 Annual  Report to  Shareholdersand are incorporated herein by reference. Our audits also included the financialstatement  schedule  listed  in  Item 15 of this  Registration  Statement.  Thisfinancial  statement  schedule  is  the  responsibility  of  the  Company’smanagement.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits. Inour opinion,  such financial statement schedule,  when considered in relation tothe basic financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all materialrespects the information set forth therein. 

/s/  Deloitte & Touche
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLPLouisville, Kentucky
#### Scott Bailey ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CS James JOLLY, SCCC; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-35623

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 9, 2017 *

Filed August 17, 2017

Scott Bailey Anderson, Pro Se

Marko Luka Pavela, State Attorney General’s Office—Corrections Division, Olympia, WA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Washington state prisoner Scott Bailey Anderson appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation and due process claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Brodheim v. Cry,*584 F.3d 1262, 1267 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Anderson’s retaliation claim because Anderson failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether there was an absence of legitimate correctional goals for defendants’ conduct. *See Pratt v. Rowland,*65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[A] successful retaliation claim requires a finding that the prison authorities’ retaliatory action did not advance legitimate goals of the correctional institution or was not tailored narrowly enough to achieve such goals.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); *Barnett v. Centoni,*31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir. 1994) (preserving institutional order and discipline are legitimate peno-logical objectives).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Anderson’s due process claim because Anderson did not raise a genuine dispute of material fact as' to whether his security-level reclassification and move to a different prison implicated a protected liberty interest. *See Sandin v. Conner,*515 U.S. 472, 483-84, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995) (holding that a constitutionally protected liberty interest arises only when a restraint imposes an “atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life”).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
James L. JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-0127

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 19, 2018]

James L. Johnson, Indiantown, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Mitchell A. Egber, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Gross, Taylor and Damoorgian, JJ., concur.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*
Ricardo D. GALLOWAY, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D18-1403

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 11, 2018 Rehearing Denied June 18, 2018

Ricardo D. Galloway, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied on the merits.

Wetherell, Ray, and Osterhaus, JJ., concur.
#### Christopher R. GRANTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WASHINGTON STATE LOTTERY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-35793

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2017 *

Filed March 16, 2017

Christopher R. Granton, Pro Se

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Christopher R. Granton appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging that the Washington State Lottery unconstitutionally denied him restitution. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal of an action as barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. *Micomonaco v. Washington,*45 F.3d 316, 319 (9th Cir. 1995). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Granton’s action against the Washington State Lottery on the basis of Eleventh Amendment immunity. *See Krainski v. Nevada ex rel. Bd. of Regents of Nevada System of Higher Educ.,*616 F.3d 963, 967 (9th Cir. 2010) (“The Eleventh Amendment bars suits against the State or its agencies for all types of relief, absent unequivocal consent by the state.” (citation omitted)); *Nat’l Audubon Society, Inc. v. Davis,*307 F.3d 835, 848 (9th Cir. 2002) (recognizing that claims against a state or its officials seeking damages or restitution are “of course prohibited by the Eleventh Amendment” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); *Confederated Tribes & Bands of Yakama Indian Nation v. Locke,*176 F.3d 467, 469-70 (9th Cir. 1999) (recognizing the Washington State Lottery as a state agency). In light of our disposition, we do not address the merits of Granton’s claims.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR v. John BOWMAN

2160329

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

May 23, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  Exhibit 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8, No. 33-17071) pertaining to the 1986 Stock Option Plan of CFX Corporation,
in the Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 33-52598) pertaining to the 1992
Employee Stock Purchase Plan of CFX Corporation, and in the Registration
Statement (Form S-8, No. 33-61787) pertaining to the 1995 Stock Option Plan for
CFX Corporation of our report dated January 29, 1997, except for Note W as to
which the date is March 27, 1997, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of CFX Corporation as of December 31, 1996, and for the year then
ended, incorporated by reference in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of CFX
Corporation for the year ended December 31, 1996.



                                       /s/
                                       --------------------------
                                       Wolf & Company, P.C.


Boston, Massachusetts
March 27, 1997
R.D.B. v. STATE

CR-15-1479

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 14, 2017

Reh. denied.
```

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 140 (Thursday, July 21, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 47381]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17276]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9949-37-OARM]

Good Neighbor Environmental Board; Notification of Public 
Advisory Committee Teleconference

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Public Advisory Committee Teleconference.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-
463, notice is hereby given that the Good Neighbor Environmental Board 
(Board) will hold a public teleconference on Friday, August 26 from 
12:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time. For further information 
regarding the teleconference and background materials, please contact 
Ann-Marie Gantner at the number and email provided below.
    Background: The Good Neighbor Environmental Board is a federal 
advisory committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 
Public Law 92-463. By statute, the Board is required to submit an 
annual report to the President on environmental and infrastructure 
issues along the U.S. border with Mexico.
    Purpose of Meeting: The purpose of this teleconference is to 
continue discussion on the Good Neighbor Environmental Board's 
Seventeenth Report to the President, which will focus on climate change 
resilience in the U.S.-Mexico border region.
    General Information: The agenda and teleconference materials, as 
well as general information about the Board, can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/faca/gneb. If you wish to make oral comments or submit 
written comments to the Board, please contact Ann-Marie Gantner at 
least five days prior to the teleconference.
    Meeting Access: For information on access or services for 
individuals with disabilities, please contact Ann-Marie Gantner at 
(202) 564-4330 or email at gantner.ann-marie@epa.gov. To request 
accommodation of a disability, please contact Ann-Marie Gantner at 
least 10 days prior to the meeting to give EPA as much time as possible 
to process your request.

    Dated: July 12, 2016.
Ann-Marie Gantner,
Designated Federal Officer.
[FR Doc. 2016-17276 Filed 7-20-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
#### Newton-Waltham Bank & Trust Company, Respondent, *v.*Bergen Motors, Inc., Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,

February 18, 1972.

*Hauser & Rosenbaum (Leonard Hochheiser*of counsel), for appellant. *Pell <& LeViness, P. C. (David 8. Hartstein*of counsel), for respondent.

Order affirmed, with $10 costs, and matter remanded for an assessment of damages. No opinion.

Concur — Croat, P. J., Schwartzwald and Margett, JJ.
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2010-NM-250-AD

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
Miterrio D. BANKS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3170

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

September 28, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Granted.
Rickey CRITTENDEN v. STATE

CR-16-0458

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 21, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Alvis MASIS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-1759

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed January 03, 2018

Alvis Masis, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Nikole Hiciano, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before ROTHENBERG, C.J., and EMAS and LUCK, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Terry D. MC KNIGHT, et al., Appellant/Petitioner(s) v. PASCO COUNTY, Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4697

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 24, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

This appeal is dismissed as from a nonappealable nonfinal order. The September 26, 2017, "order on Pasco County's amended motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction" does not, contrary to the appellants' assertion in their response to this court's order to show cause, dismiss anything; it merely grants a motion to dismiss. See Hayward & Associates, Inc. v. Hoffman, 793 So. 2d 89, 91 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) ("[l]t is well-established that an order that merely grants a motion to dismiss, as contrasted with an order dismissing a complaint or an action, is not a final order."); Johnson v. First City Bank of Gainesville, 491 So. 2d 1217, 1218 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) ("The order from which this appeal is taken granted the appellees' motion to dismiss 'with prejudice.' It is an order granting a motion, not an order dismissing the action. Such an order is not final and not appealable."); see also Potucek v. Smeja, 419 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) (noting that rule 1.530(a), (b) "has been consistently construed to authorize rehearings only on orders and judgments which are final in nature.") Furthermore, the appellants have not identified any separate basis on which this court would have jurisdiction over the October 25, 2017, "stipulated order on plaintiffs' motion for leave to file second amended complaint." The appellants' motion for extension of time is denied as moot.

NORTHCUTT, SALARIO, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jorge Alberto AVALOS, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-40556 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Date Filed: 11/23/2016

Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Jorge Alberto Avalos, Pro Se

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges,

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jorge Alberto Avalos has *875moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Avalos 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. 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.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that, this opinion should not be *875published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Justin SIMMONS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4825

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 5, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
t,"( cc: Hon. Elizabeth Goff Gonzalez, District Judge Clark County Public Defender Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk Alejandro Rodriguez

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A 2
Dwight L. TOOMBS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-602

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 17, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin Michael STEHLIK, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6548

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 27, 2017

Decided: August 1, 2017

Kevin Michael Stehlik, Appellant Pro Se. Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*170PER CURIAM:

Kevin Michael Stehlik seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is .not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). "When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595,

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Stehlik has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*