alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Jose Daniel Mazariegos PEREZ, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 14-71094

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 9, 2017 *

Filed August 15, 2017 .

Jose Daniel Mazariegos Perez, Pro Se

Dawn S. Conrad, 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 *289Homeland 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 **

Jose Daniel Mazariegos Perez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying a continuance. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance. *Ahmed v. Holder,*569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Mazariegos Perez’s request for a continuance, where he waited until his 2012 hearing to seek prosecutorial discretion, and it was speculative whether the Department of Homeland Security would exercise discretion. *See id.*(factors considered in determining whether the denial of a continuance constitutes an abuse of discretion include the nature of the evidence excluded and the reasonableness of the immigrant’s conduct); *Singh v. Holder,*638 F.3d 1264, 1274 (9th Cir. 2011) (agency not required to grant a continuance based on speculation).

We lack, jurisdiction to consider Maza-riegos Perez’s contentions regarding the denial of asylum and related relief in the BIA’s September 22, 2011, order, where this petition is not timely as.to that order. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (“The petition for review must be filed not later than 30 days after the date of the final order of removal.”); *Singh v. Lynch,*835 F.3d 880, 883 (9th Cir. 2016) (a BIA order remanding solely for voluntary departure proceedings is a final order of removal); *Rizo v. Lynch,*810 F.3d 688, 691 (9th Cir. 2016) (same).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not. appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHRISTIAN CASTRO-ALVARADO, 

AKA Omar Cosio-Alvarado, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 16-71004 

Agency No. A206-407-221 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 15, 2017**

Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges. 

Christian Castro-Alvarado, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for 

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 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 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

NOV 22 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-71004 

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the 

agency’s factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 

2006), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Castro-Alvarado

failed to establish a nexus between the harm he fears and a protected ground. See

Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if membership in a 

particular social group is established, an applicant must still show that “persecution 

was or will be on account of his membership in such group” (emphasis in 

original)); see also Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An 

[applicant’s] desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or 

random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground.”). Thus, 

his asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. 

We do not address Castro-Alvarado’s contentions regarding the one-year 

asylum bar, credibility, the cognizability of his proposed social group, and the 

government’s willingness or ability to control his alleged persecutors because the 

BIA did not deny relief on these grounds. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 

F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011).

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CastroAlvarado’s CAT claim because he did not demonstrate it is more likely than not

that he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government
3 16-71004 

if returned to Mexico. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir.

2008). We reject his contention that the agency applied an incorrect legal standard. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
EX PARTE Eugene KEELER

(In re: Eugene Keeler v. Anderson Automotive, LLC)

2160459

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

April 3, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
#### Gregory MCCLELLAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S. LOZANO, Parole Agent—CDCR; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-15149

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*299Submitted August 9, 2017 *

Filed August 15, 2017

Gregory McClellan, Pro Se

Jaime Ganson, Deputy Attorney General, Krista Leigh Pollard, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee S. Lozano

Heather Sharon Cohen, Attorney, Michael George Marderosian, Attorney, Marderosian, Cercone & Cohen, Fresno, CA, Virginia Anne Gennaro, Esquire, Chief Counsel, City Attorney, City of Bakersfield, Bakersfield, CA, for Defendants--Appellees Louis Wood, Kenneth Perkins

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 ***

Gregory McClellan appeals pro se from the magistrate judge’s January 15, 2016 order denying McClellan in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Washington v. L.A. Cty. Sheriff’s Dep’t,*833 F.3d 1048, 1054 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.

The magistrate judge properly denied IFP status because at the time McClellan brought this action, McClellan was a prisoner and had accumulated three strikes. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); *O’Neal v. Price,*531 F.3d 1146, 1154 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Because § 1915(g) .., does not distinguish between dismissals with and without prejudice, ... a dismissal without prejudice may count as a strike.” (citation omitted)).

Defendants’ request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 25) is denied.

Defendants’ motions to strike evidence attached to the reply brief (Docket Entry Nos. 31 and 32) are granted.

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<PAGE>


                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                       OF
                           ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                            CAPITAL CORP OF THE WEST

          Thomas T. Hawker and Janey Boyce hereby certify that:

          1.    They are the President and the Chief Financial Officer,
respectively of CAPITAL CORP OF THE WEST, a California corporation.

          2.   The articles of incorporation of this corporation shall be
amended to add the following provision as ARTICLE VIII:

          Any action required or permitted to be taken by the shareholders of
          this corporation must be taken at a duly called annual meeting or
          special meeting of the shareholders of the corporation and no action
          may be taken by the written consent by the shareholders.

          3.   The foregoing amendment of articles of incorporation has been
duly approved by the board of directors.

          4.   The foregoing amendment of articles of incorporation has been 
duly approved by the required vote of shareholders in accordance with Section 
902 of the California Corporations Code. The total number of outstanding shares
of the corporation entitled to vote on the amendment was 1,335,831. The number 
of shares voting in favor of the amendment equaled or exceeded the vote 
required. The percentage vote required was more than 50%.

          We further declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the
State of California that the matters set forth in this certificate are true and
correct of our own knowledge.

Date: August 14, 1996

                                         /s/ Thomas T. Hawker
                                        -----------------------------------
                                        Thomas T. Hawker, President


                                         /s/  Janey Boyce
                                        ------------------------------------
                                        Janey Boyce, Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary  financial information extracted from SEC
     Form 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
     statements as of and for the six months ended June 30, 2000.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000883946
<NAME>                        TREEV INC
<MULTIPLIER>                               1,000

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                             751
<SECURITIES>                                       348
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,978
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (1,210)
<INVENTORY>                                        675
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,890
<PP&E>                                           5,935
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (4,625)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  19,928
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,067
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                        (463)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    19,928
<SALES>                                         16,721
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                16,721
<CGS>                                           10,069
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,069
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                13,944
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 771
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (8,063)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (8,063)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (8,063)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.59)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.59)



</TABLE>
10.3 - GM Amendment of Consulting Agreement










    


4 W. Rockland Road, P.O. Box 9, Montchanin, DE 19710   www.acornenergy.com  Tel: (302) 656-1707   Fax: (302) 656-1703




March 31, 2012




Mr. George Morgenstern
5 Shalvah Place
Monsey, New York 10952


Re:    Amendment of Consulting Agreement


Dear George:


This letter will serve to confirm that pursuant to action taken by the Board of Directors of Acorn Energy, Inc. (the “Corporation”) on March 30, 2012, the Board authorized that your Consulting Agreement with the Corporation dated as of March 9, 2006 and as previously amended (the “Agreement”) be extended on a month-to-month basis until either party notifies the other in writing at least 10 days prior to any month-end that it wishes to terminate such Agreement, in which case the term shall end as of the last day of the month in which such notice is timely given.  You will be paid a pro rata portion (i.e., $4,687.50) of your annualized, non-accountable expense allowance each month by the Corporation and by DSIT Solutions, Ltd. (“DSIT”) on the basis agreed in the letter dated March 15, 2011.  By its execution of this amendment below, DSIT agrees to pay its monthly share of your annualized allowance (i.e., $3,125), and acknowledges that such payment will inure to its benefit.


Very truly yours,






By:                      
John A. Moore
President and CEO


AGREED AND ACKNOWLEDGED:


DSIT SOLUTIONS, LTD.


By:                      
Benny Sela
CEO


ACCEPTED AND AGREED:


                    
GEORGE MORGENSTERN
#### Emiel A. KANDI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HERITAGE FINANCIAL CORPORATION; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-35661

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2017 *

Filed June 5, 2017

Emiel A. Kandi, Pro Se

Jeffrey R. Goodell, Pro Se

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Federal prisoner Emiel A. Kandi appeals pro se from the district court’s judg*416ment dismissing his action alleging a Racketeer Influenced.and Corrupt Organizations Act claim and various state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Watison v. Carter,*668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)); *Headwaters, Inc. v. U.S. Forest Serv.,*399 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2005) (dismissal based on res judica-ta). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. *Franklin v. Terr,*201 F.3d 1098, 1100 n.2 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Kandi’s claims against Heritage Financial Corporation on the basis of res judicata. *See Headwaters, Inc.,*399 F.3d at 1052 (setting forth the three-factor test to establish res judicata).

Dismissal of Kandi’s claims against the remaining defendants was proper because the issue of when Kandi’s claims accrued was actually litigated and decided in Kan-di’s prior federal court action. *See Taylor v. Sturgell,*553 U.S. 880, 892, 128 S.Ct. 2161, 171 L.Ed.2d 155 (2008) (issue preclusion bars “successive litigation of an issue of fact or law actually litigated and resolved in a valid court determination essential to the prior judgment, even if the issue recurs in the context of a different claim” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Kandi leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. *See Reddy v. Litton Indus., Inc.,*912 F.2d 291, 296 (9th Cir. 1990) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that leave to amend can be denied when proposed amendment would be futile).

We reject as without merit Kandi’s contentions that the dismissal of his action violated his right to a jury trial or due process.

We do not consider Kandi’s arguments regarding the resolution of his prior action because those issues are outside the scope of this appeal,

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid*416ed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

___________________

NO. 09-12-00464-CV

___________________

IN THE INTEREST OF A.K.M., J.D.M., AND D.M.M.

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On Appeal from the 252nd District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. F-201,904-H 

________________________________________________________ _____________

ORDER

The appellant filed a motion to transfer a sealed reporter’s record of a proceeding

conducted on April 18, 2012 from the record of a mandamus proceeding arising out of 

the same case now on appeal. The appellee did not file an objection to this request.

The appellant requested that additional items be included in the clerk’s record. See 

Tex. R. App. P. 34.5(b). The appellee objected to the inclusion of correspondence from 

counsel for the appellee and oral and video-taped depositions that were not on file with 

the trial court at the time the trial court ruled on the case, but were filed with the district 
2

clerk after this appeal had been perfected. In response, the appellant contends the trial 

court had been present for the depositions and considered them during the hearing. 

Appellant’s motion to file the original, sealed reporter’s record previously filed in 

original proceeding No. 09-12-00179-CV in the record of this appeal is GRANTED. We 

direct the Clerk of the Court of Appeals to file the original reporter’s record of the 

hearing in Appeal No. 09-12-00179-CV as a supplemental reporter’s record in this 

appeal. The record shall remain under seal. 

Appellee’s objection to the inclusion of the depositions in the clerk’s record is 

DENIED. The Court will determine whether a party requested unnecessary items when it 

takes up the merits of the case and assesses costs on appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 

34.5(b)(3). 

ORDER ENTERED February 7, 2013.

 PER CURIAM

 

Before Gaultney, Kreger, and Horton, JJ.
**EXHIBIT - 31.3**

 

MOSSIMO,INC.

 

CERTIFICATIONOF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

 

I, Vicken Festekjian, Chief FinancialOfficer of the registrant, certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Mossimo,Inc.;

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

 

3.               Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.               The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a)              Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant is, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, made known to us by others, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;

 

(c)              Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(d)             Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s first fiscal quarter) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.               The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal controls over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a)              All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b)             Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.

 
| /s/ VICKEN FESTEKJIAN   |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Vicken Festekjian       |
| Chief Financial Officer |
| May 19, 2006            |

 

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Basilio MONJARAS, also known as Agustin Menjivar-Escobar, also known as Jose Bacilio Monjas, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-40288 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Date Filed: 12/20/2016

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

Jose Basilio Monjaras, Pro Se

Before DENNIS, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Basilio Monjaras 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 (5th Cir. 2011). Monjaras has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. *913We 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 published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.