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

No. 14-72453

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 *

Filed October 2, 2017

Christopher John Stender, Esquire, Attorney, Federal Immigration Counselors, AZ, PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner

Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Todd J. Cochran, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, 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 **

Jose Antonio Lopez-Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Boqrd of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and review de novo questions of law. *Chuen Piu Kwong v. Holder,*671 F.3d 872, 880 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review.

As to Lopez-Garcia’s contentions regarding ineffective assistance of counsel, the. agency did not err in denying Lopez-Garcia’s motion to reopen where he failed to comply with the requirements of *Matter of Lozada,*19 I. *&*N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), and any ineffective assistance was not plain on the face of the record, *see Castillo-Perez v. INS,*212 F.3d 518, 525 (9th Cir. 2000); *see also Reyes v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 592, 597 (9th Cir. 2004) (ineffective assistance of counsel claim failed where petitioner did not submit a personal affidavit outlining his agreement with his former attorney and describing the attorney’s al*501leged misconduct, and there was no evidence petitioner’s former attorney had been notified of his ineffective assistance allegations).

As to Lopez-Garcia’s remaining contentions, the agency did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to reopen where he failed to set forth evidence, that was material and not available and could not have been discovered or presented at Lopez-Garcia’s former immigration hearing. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); *Goel v. Gonzales,*490 F.3d 735, 738 (9th Cir. 2007) (“If [the evidence sought to be offered] was available or capable of being discovered at [the former hearing], it cannot provide a basis for reopening.”) (citation omitted).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Juan Carlos AGUIRRE-SANDOVAL, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 12-70507

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 26, 2017*

Filed July 5, 2017

Douglas D. Nelson, Esquire, Attorney, Douglas D. Nelson, Attorney at Law, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner

Dalin Riley Holyoak, Esquire, Trial Attorney, Carmel Aileen Morgan, 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: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

*589MEMORANDUM **

Juan Carlos Aguirre-Sandoval, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“U”) decision denying his motion to suppress evidence and terminate removal proceedings, and ordering him removed. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. *Martinez-Medina v. Holder,*673 F.3d 1029, 1033 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The agency did not err in denying Aguirre-Sandoval’s motion to suppress or terminate proceedings, or in sustaining the charge of inadmissibility, because *Samayoa-Martinez v. Holder,*558 F.3d 897, 901-02 (9th Cir. 2009), forecloses his contention that his statements to immigration officials at the border were obtained in violation of 8 C.F.R. § 287.3(c). Aguirre-Sandoval urges us to reconsider our holding in *Sa-mayoa-Martinez,*but a three-judge panel cannot overrule circuit precedent in the absence of an intervening decision from a higher court or en banc decision of this court. *See Avagyan v. Holder,*646 F.3d 672, 677 (9th Cir. 2011). We also reject Aguirre-Sandoval’s contention that *de Rodriguez-Echeverria v. Mukasey,*534 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2008) controls the result of his case.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Aguirre-Sandoval’s unexhausted contentions regarding service of the list of legal service providers or errors in the government’s evidence, including the Form 1-213, Record of Inadmissible/Deportable Alien and D-166, Report of Investigation. *See Tijani v. Holder,*628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010).

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.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________________
No. 96-50556

____________________ JAMES E. LEBLANC,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

TRANSCONTINENTAL RIGGING AND LOADING CORPORATION AND JOSEPH BACH,

Defendants-Appellees.

__________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

( 95-CV-58 )

__________________________________________

November 29, 1996 Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Plaintiff LeBlanc appeals the summary judgment in his personal
injury action. The district court held that as a matter of law,

LeBlanc could not prove defendants were the proximate cause of his
injuries. Pursuant to our d e novo review, we AFFIRM for
essentially the reasons stated by the district court in its
comprehensive opinion.AFFIRMED
#### Kisasi David LIGGINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Leroy D. BACA, Sheriff, individual and official capacity; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-56124

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 *

Filed October 5, 2017

Kisasi David Liggins, Corcoran, CA, pro se.

Amber A. Logan, Nelson *&*Fulton, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

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 **

Kisasi David Liggins, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims arising from his pretrial detention at L.A. County Men’s Central Jail (“MCJ”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Toguchi v. Chung,*391 *519F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Liggins’s failure-to-protect claim because Liggins failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Prestwich made an intentional decision to reassign Liggins’s cell or caused Liggins’s injuries. *See Castro v. County of Los Angeles,*833 F.3d 1060, 1071 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (setting forth elements of a pretrial detainee’s Fourteenth Amendment failure-to-protect claim).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Liggins’s claim against defendant Baca in his official capacity because Liggins failed to raise a triable dispute as to whether any policy or custom of MCJ caused Liggins to suffer constitutional injuries. *See id.*at 1073-76 (discussing requirements to establish municipal liability under *Monell v. Department of Social Services,*436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978)); *see also Monell,*436 U.S. at 690 n.55, 98 S.Ct. 2018 (official capacity suits are “another way of pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is an agent”).

We reject as without merit Liggins’s contentions that defendants failed to provide all relevant discovery.

We do not consider issues not properly raised before the district court, or arguments not raised in the opening brief. *See Smith v. Marsh,*194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 32.1

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 of Blockbuster Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended January 3, 2010 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, James W. Keyes, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: March 15, 2010



/s/ James W. KeyesJames W. KeyesChairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit-32.1


                        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 Amended Report of eClic, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Evagelina Esparza Barrza, Chief Executive Officer, Principal Executive Officer,
Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of eClic, Inc.
(the "Registrant"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 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; and

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

Date: June 16, 2004
      -------------
                                           /s/ Evagelina Esparza Barrza
                                           ----------------------------
                                               Evagelina Esparza Barrza
                                               Chief Executive Officer
                                               Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit
32.1




CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND


CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER




Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350 and in connection with the accompanying report on Form
10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 that contains financial
statements for such period and that is being filed concurrently with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of
the undersigned officers of Perficient, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies
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.




Date: March
      4, 2008
            By:
            /s/
      John T. McDonaldJohn
      T. McDonaldChief
      Executive Officer




Date: March
      4, 2008
            By:
            /s/
      Paul E. MartinPaul
      E. MartinChief
      Financial Officer
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN
NO. 03-0 7 -00 393 -CR
Ann isaRa die Wil lia m s , A ppe lla nt

v . The State of Texas, App ellee
F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF B ELL COUNTY , 426TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 6110 0 , HO NORAB LE F ANCY H . JEZ EK , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

ME MO R

A ND UMO P I N I O N Annisa Radie Williams seeks to appea l a judgme nt of conviction for posse ssion of a contr olled substance. T he trial c ourt has ce rtified that this is a plea barg ain case and W illiams has no right of appe al, and a lso that W illiams waived the right of appe al. Se e Blan c o v. Sta te , 18 S.W .3d 218, 220 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). The appe al is dismis sed. See Tex. R. App. P . 25.2(a) (2), ( d).

__________________________________________ W. Kenneth L aw, Chief Justice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Waldrop a nd Henson Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: Jul y

26, 2007 Do No t Pu

bli sh
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

February 27, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132651 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 132651 

 COA: 272702 

Wayne CC: 05-002205-01

CANTEL RAYBURN HAYDEN,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 23, 2006 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t0220 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

February 27, 2007 

 Clerk
Exhibit 31.1

Panolam Industries International, Inc.  Certification pursuant to Section 302  of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  Certification

I,
Robert J. Muller, as the principal executive officer of the registrant, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Panolam Industries International, Inc.;

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

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

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and
have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



Date:
March 31, 2009

/s/ ROBERT J. MULLER Robert J. Muller Chairman, President and
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)


---



QuickLinks
#### Albert L. BARNES, Sr., Petitioner, v. U.S. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Respondent.

No. 17-70193

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 *

FILED OCTOBER 5, 2017

Albert L. Barnes, Sr., Palmdale, CA, pro se.

Stephen G. Yoder, Securities & Exchange Commission, Washington, DC, 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 **

Albert L. Barnes, Sr. petitions pro se for review of an order of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) denying a whistleblower award. We have jurisdiction under to 15 U.S.C. § 76u-6(f). We deny the petition.

The Commission properly denied Barnes a whistleblower award because Barnes did not “provide[ ] original information to the Commission that led to the successful enforcement” of the subject .covered action. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(b)(l) (the Commission shall pay an award to a whistleblower who provides original information to the Commission that leads to the successful enforcement of a covered action); *id.*at § 78u-6(a)(l),. (6) (defining covered action and whistleblower); *id.*§ 76u-6(f) (setting forth standard of review).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Barnes’ contentions regarding the Commission’s pending determinations of whistleblower awards for other covered actions.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985*n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

All pending motions and requests are denied.

DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EXHIBIT 32

                            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 of Prime Air, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form  10-QSB/A  for  the  period  ending  September  30,  2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report").  I, Blaine
Haug,  Chief  Executive  Officer  and  Chief  Financial Officer, of the Company,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

     (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  result of operations of the
Company.



Dated:  April  30,  2004             /s/  Blaine  Haug
                                     -----------------
                                     Blaine  Haug
                                     Chief  Executive  Officer  and
                                     Chief  Financial  Officer
                                     (Principal  Executive  Officer  and
                                     Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)


                                       15
<PAGE>
Filed 4/18/13 Mkrtchyan v. Connect to Communications CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

ARAM MKRTCHYAN,
Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.
CONNECT TO COMMUNICATIONS,
Defendant and Respondent. B244224
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC436000)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Su perior Court of Los Angeles County, Ernest M. Hiroshige, Judge. Dismissed. Aram Mkrtchyan, in pro. pe r., for Plaintiff and Appellant. No appearance for Defe ndant and Respondent.

——————————2 Aram Mkrtchyan filed an action alleging fraud against Connect to Communications. On July 24, 2012, th e trial court sustained Connect to
Communication’s demurrer with leave to amend w ithin 10 days. The co urt stated that the complaint lacked facts to su pport the fraud allegations. Mk rtchyan was served with the notice of ruling on July 30, 2012. On September 18, 2012, the court gran ted Connect to Communication’s motion to dismiss the complaint (to which Mkrtchyan did not file an op position). The court ruled: “Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint as of the date of this ruling. Plaintiff apparently no longer intends to pursue this action against Defendant or is unable to
amend the defects discussed in the Cour t’s July 24, 2012 ru ling on demurrer. Accordingly, the motion is granted.” Mkrt chyan appealed. Connect to Communication did not file a respondent’s brief. It is an appellant’s burde n to procure an adequate record on appeal allowing
review of the issues. When the appellant fails to provide such a record, we may dismiss the appeal. ( Foust v. San Jose Co nstruction Co., Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 181, 187.) Mkrtchyan appeals from the dismissal of his comp laint, but he has not included a copy of the complaint in the r ecord. Nor does the record contai n the demurrer filed by Connect to Communications, or any oppositi on by Mkrtchyan. We note that Mkrtchyan’s brief is also deficient, citing no author ity, and giving no description of the complaint. As we lack
the documents that were the ba sis for the trial court’s ruling, including the complaint that was the subject of the dismi ssal, we dismiss the appeal.3 DISPOSITION The appeal is dismissed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

JOHNSON, J.

We concur:

MALLANO, P. J.

ROTHSCHILD, J.
<PAGE>



                                  EXHIBIT 23.1


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


         We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement
# 333-51248 on Form S-8, Registration Statement # 333-56844 on Form S-3 and in
Registration Statement # 333-78713 on Form S-3 of Net2Phone, Inc. of our report
dated October 23, 2001 with respect to the financial statements and schedule of
Net2Phone, Inc. included in this Annual Report on Form 10K for the year ended
July 31, 2001, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


                                               /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

New York, New York
October 23, 2001