alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### KUIPING GOU, AKA Baojun Hou, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 12-71241

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 9, 2017 *

Filed August 14, 2017

Mun Su Park, Ph.D., Attorney, Law Offices of Park *&*Associates, Tamuning, GU, for Petitioner

Yamileth G. Davila, Trial Attorney, Jonathan Aaron Robbins, Esquire, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

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 **

Kuiping Gou’s opposed motion to remand (Docket Entry No. 22) is denied.

Gou, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“U”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. *Shrestha v. Holder,*590 F.3d 1034, 1039-1040 (9th Cir. 2010). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We reject Gou’s contention that he sufficiently challenged the IJ’s denial of his asylum application as untimely on appeal to the BIA. Thus, we lack jurisdiction to consider his contentions regarding the timeliness of his asylum application raised for the first time in his opening brief. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on the agency’s findings as to Gou’s identity, and his varying assertions as to his level of involvement in forced birth control procedures in China. *See Shrestha,*590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under the totality of circumstances); *Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003) (upholding adverse credibility determination based in part on a failure to establish identity credibly). In the absence of credible statements, in this case, Gou’s withholding of removal claim fails. *See Farah,*348 F.3d at 1156.

Finally, Gou’s CAT claim also fails because it was based on the same statements found not credible, and Gou does not point to any evidence that compels the finding that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquies*222cence of the government of China. *See id.*at 1157.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Opinion issued June 18 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 1 9
- 00 406
- CR

——————————— IN RE WILLIAM SOLOMON LEWI S , Relator

O rigi n al Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator, William Solomon Lewis , has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus ,

c ontending that the trial court has failed to consider or rule on his application for a writ of habeas corpus seeking a reduction in the amount of his b ail

. 1
We d eny the petition

.

1 The underlying case is William Solomon Lewis v. The State of Texas , cause number 2256940, in the County Criminal Court at Law No. 1 4 of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable David L. Singer presiding.2 PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Lloyd , Landau , and Countiss

. Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2( b).
Exhibit 99.1





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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of NaviSite, Inc. (the
Company) for the period ended July 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Patricia Gilligan, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.








Dated: October 29, 2002

/s/ PATRICIA
GILLIGANPatricia Gilligan Chief Executive
Officer








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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of NaviSite, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended July 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), the undersigned, Kevin H. Lo, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.








Dated: October 29, 2002

/s/ KEVIN H. LOKevin H. Lo Chief Financial
Officer
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Rodney Carter,Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer of Christopher &Banks Corporation (the “Company”) certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.  The quarterly report of the Company on Form 10-Q****for the period ended November 28, 2009 as filed withthe United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;  and

 

2.  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date: January 7,  2010 |     |                                                              |
|-----------------------------|----------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                        |     |                                                              |
|                        | By:      | /s/ Rodney Carter                                                 |
|                        | * * | Rodney Carter*Executive Vice President,**Chief Financial Officer* |

 

----
Joan JOHNSON, Appellant, v. Lee TOWNSEND, Leslie Lynch, Elizabeth Denecke, and Lisa Einhorn, Appellees.

No. 4D17-3268

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[June 21, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.37


OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE (OCI)    STATE OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
In the Matter of    STIPULATION AND ORDER
Ambac Assurance Corporation,    


Respondent.    Case No. 17-C42069
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 


Amendment 1
The Respondent, Ambac Financial Group Inc., and the Commissioner do agree and stipulate to adding the following amended terms and conditions to the stipulation and order entered on January 23, 2018:
		
	(1)
	The Respondent and Ambac Financial Group Inc. will follow the requirements that applied under Section 3.01 of the Cooperation Agreement dated as of March 24, 2010, as amended, and the terms of Section 3.01 are hereby incorporated into this stipulation and order by reference. 




		
	(2)
	All other terms and conditions of the January 23, 2018 order remain in effect.




_________________          /s/ Claude Le Blanc                                       
Date    Claude LeBlanc
President and Chief Executive Officer
Ambac Assurance Corporation and Ambac Financial Group, Inc.






___________________          /s/ Cari Lee                                                    
Date        Cari Lee
Division Administrator
Division of Regulation and Enforcement













ORDER


NOW, THEREFORE, based upon consideration of the Stipulation in this matter, I hereby order under ss. 601.41(4)(a), 623.11, and ch. 617, Wis. Stat., and s. Ins 51.80 (7), Wis. Adm. Code:


(1) The Respondent and Ambac Financial Group, Inc. shall comply with all agreements made in this Amended Stipulation and Order.


Dated at Madison, Wisconsin, this               day of                                                            .






                                                           
Theodore K. Nickel
Commissioner of Insurance
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6217 

To provide for emergency acquisition authority in the event of armed attack 

against a United States ally or partner by a foreign adversary of the 

United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 3, 2023 

Mr. JACKSON of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To provide for emergency acquisition authority in the event 

of armed attack against a United States ally or partner 

by a foreign adversary of the United States. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Securing American Ac5 quisitions, Readiness, and Military Stockpiles Act of 

6 2023’’ or the ‘‘Securing American ARMS Act of 2023’’. 

7 SEC. 2. EMERGENCY ACQUISITION AUTHORITY. 

8 Section 3601(a)(1) of title 10, United States Code, 

9 is amended— 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6217 IH

1 (1) in subparagraph (A)(iv), by striking ‘‘; or’’ 

2 and inserting a semicolon; 

3 (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period 

4 at the end and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and 

5 (3) by adding at the end the following new sub6 paragraph: 

7 ‘‘(C) for purposes of— 

8 ‘‘(i) replenishing United States stock9 piles with like defense articles when those 

10 stockpiles are diminished as a result of the 

11 United States providing defense articles in 

12 response to an armed attack by a country 

13 of concern (as that term is defined in sec14 tion 1(m) of the State Department Basic 

15 Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 

16 2651a(m)) against— 

17 ‘‘(I) a United States ally (as that 

18 term is defined in section 201(d) of 

19 the Act of December 2, 1942, entitled, 

20 ‘To provide benefits for the injury, 

21 disability, death, or enemy detention 

22 of employees of contractors with the 

23 United States, and for other purposes’ 

24 (56 Stat. 1028, chapter 668; 42 

25 U.S.C. 1711(d))); or 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 6217 IH

1 ‘‘(II) a United States partner; or 

2 ‘‘(ii) contracting for the movement or 

3 delivery of defense articles transferred to 

4 such ally or partner through the Presi5 dent’s drawdown authorities in connection 

6 with such response, 

7 provided that the United States is not a party 

8 to the hostilities.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| (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/                Hal M. Brown      | /s/                Michael A. Reynolds |
|----------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|
| Hal                M. Brown          | Michael                A. Reynolds     |
| Chief                Executive Officer    | Chief                Financial Officer |
Donna RUDDER, Appellant/petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-2823

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

September 20, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Charles E. TATE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. HANDYMAN HOME REPAIR, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0580

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 14, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
EXHIBIT 11.1

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                 CHRONIMED INC.

                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                    (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)


                                                     THREE MONTHS ENDED         NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                                    MAR. 28,     MAR. 29,     MAR. 28,     MAR. 29,
                                                     1997         1996         1997         1996
                                                     ----         ----         ----         ----
<S>                                                <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>   
Primary
  Average shares outstanding ................       11,763       12,330       12,125       12,151
  Net effect of dilutive stock options
     and warrants -- based on the treasury
     stock method using average market price           364        1,037          486          835
                                                   -------      -------      -------      -------

         Total ..............................       12,127       13,367       12,611       12,986
                                                   =======      =======      =======      =======

Net income ..................................      $ 1,163      $ 1,502      $ 4,179      $ 3,849
                                                   =======      =======      =======      =======

Net income per share ........................      $   .10      $   .11      $   .33      $   .30
                                                   =======      =======      =======      =======




Fully Diluted
  Average shares outstanding ................       11,763       12,330       12,125       12,151
  Net effect of dilutive stock options
     and warrants -- based on the treasury
     stock method using the higher of average
     or ending market price .................          364        1,098          486        1,097
                                                   -------      -------      -------      -------

         Total ..............................       12,127       13,428       12,611       13,248
                                                   =======      =======      =======      =======

Net income ..................................      $ 1,163      $ 1,502      $ 4,179      $ 3,849
                                                   =======      =======      =======      =======

Net income per share ........................      $   .10      $   .11      $   .33      $   .29
                                                   =======      =======      =======      =======

</TABLE>
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6179 

To exclude from consideration as income under the housing assistance programs of the Department of Housing and Urban Development amounts 

received by a family from the Department of Veterans Affairs for servicerelated disabilities of a member of the family, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 2, 2023 

Mr. CARBAJAL (for himself and Mr. SMUCKER) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To exclude from consideration as income under the housing 

assistance programs of the Department of Housing and 

Urban Development amounts received by a family from 

the Department of Veterans Affairs for service-related 

disabilities of a member of the family, and for other 

purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Home for the Brave 

5 Act of 2023’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6179 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF VETERANS DISABILITY BENEFITS 

2 FROM INCOME. 

3 The Department of Housing and Urban Development 

4 Act (42 U.S.C. 3531 et seq.) is amended by adding at 

5 the end the following new section: 

6 ‘‘SEC. 15. EXCLUSION OF VETERANS DISABILITY BENEFITS 

7 FROM INCOME. 

8 ‘‘Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any 

9 amounts received by any member of a household or family 

10 as disability compensation under chapter 11 of title 38, 

11 United States Code, or dependency and indemnity com12 pensation under chapter 13 of such title, shall not be con13 sidered as income of such household or family for purposes 

14 of— 

15 ‘‘(1) determining the eligibility of such family 

16 or household for assistance under any program for 

17 housing assistance administered by the Secretary; 

18 ‘‘(2) the amount of benefits payable to or on 

19 behalf of such family or household under such pro20 gram; or 

21 ‘‘(3) the amount of rent paid by such family or 

22 household for occupancy of a dwelling unit assisted 

23 under any such program.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Avner KADOSH v. MONTGOMERY INVESTMENTS, LLC, et al.

1151298

Supreme Court of Alabama.

February 10, 2017

Affirmed.
EX PARTE R.A.H.

CR-16-0771

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

June 21, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
Joseph John HARPER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-1081

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 24, 2018]

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Peggy Natale, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Georgina Jimenez-Orosa, Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Gerber, C.J., Gross and Conner, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Bruce Parker, Appellant.

[771 NYS2d 165]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Boklan, J.), rendered March 4, 2002, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence, as there was probable cause for the arrest *(see generally People v McRay,*51 NY2d 594 [1980]; *see also People v Ayarde,*229 AD2d 590 [1996]; *People v Balas,*104 AD2d 1039 [1984]).

Contrary to the defendant’s further contention, the Supreme Court properly denied his request for a missing witness charge with respect to the individual who purchased the drugs from *586him. The defendant never made the required prima facie showing that the witness could be expected to testify in the People’s favor or that she was under their control *(see generally People v Savinon,*100 NY2d 192 [2003]; *People v Macana,*84 NY2d 173 [1994]; *People v Gonzalez,*68 NY2d 424 [1986]).

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt is unpreserved for appellate review since he did not specify in his motion to dismiss at the trial the grounds he now raises *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Gray,*86 NY2d 10 [1995]; *People v Udzinski,*146 AD2d 245 [1989]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the trier of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses *(see People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86, 88 [1974]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Goldstein, Luciano and Cozier, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1997
<CASH>                                         195,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  800,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   230,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               837,000
<PP&E>                                         277,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 155,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,096,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          830,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     (62,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,096,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,437,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  412,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               892,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                111,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            111,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   111,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>