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

No. 14-72633

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 8, 2017 * Pasadena, California

Filed June 12, 2017

Dennis James Eoffe, Attorney, Law Office of Dennis Eoffe, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioner

Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Sarah K. Per-golizzi, Trial Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before: GRABER and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges, and BOLTON,** District Judge.

*

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

**

 The Honorable Susan R. Bolton, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Petitioner Yingzi Lin seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“U”) order denying Petitioner’s applications for asylum and withholding of removal. Reviewing for substantial evidence, Budiono v. Lynch, 837 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th Cir. 2016), we deny the petition.

1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination. Petitioner gave non-responsive answers to three separate questions. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (b)(1) (B) (iii) (permitting the IJ to consider the “responsiveness of the applicant” in making a credibility determination). She also testified inconsistently about whether the birth control official was from her neighborhood or from her place of employment. Petitioner’s explanation to us that perhaps the same person was in charge of both areas contradicts her clear *453testimony that the official was from her neighborhood only. Because some substantial reasons support the BIA’s decision, we need not consider the BIA’s other reasons. Lianhua Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738-39 (9th Cir. 2014).

2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s analysis of the documents in the record. The BIA permissibly found that, even if the documents in the record were credited, they did not establish that Petitioner’s abortion was forced. Accordingly, Petitioner could not establish her claims for relief from removal without credible testimony.

Petition DENIED;

***

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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7660

CHARLES EUGENE DUCKETT, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN FRANK BISHOP; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF 

MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. 

George Jarrod Hazel, District Judge. (8:17-cv-02577-GJH)

Submitted: March 12, 2020 Decided: March 17, 2020

Before KING, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Eugene Duckett, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Charles Eugene Duckett, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as 

untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2018) petition. See Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 148 

& n.9 (2012) (explaining that § 2254 petitions are subject to one-year statute of limitations, 

running from latest of four commencement dates enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) 

(2018)). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2018). 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) (2018). When, as here, the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, 

the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and 

that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez, 

565 U.S. at 140-41 (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Duckett 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
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Oziel LERMA-CRUZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-40478 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

Oziel Lerma-Cruz, Pro Se

Before DENNIS, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Oziel Lerma-Cruz 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). Lerma-Cruz 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 published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
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 on Form 10-KSB of BellaVista  Capital,
Inc. (the  "Company") for the period ended  September 30, 2007 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the  Report"),  and
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, I, Michael Rider, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify 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
     Corporation.


/s/ MICHAEL RIDER
-----------------------------
Michael Rider, Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer of BellaVista Capital, Inc.
December 31, 2007
Exhibit 32.1  Pacific WebWorks, Inc.  CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 18 U.S.C. Section 1350  The undersigned officer of Pacific WebWorks, Inc. certifies pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:  • the annual report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2005, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  • the information contained in the Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.    Date:   March 20,2007  /s/ Kenneth W. Bell Kenneth W. Bell Chief Executive Officer Principal Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1






CERTIFICATIONS 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 Quarterly Report of Chromcraft Revington, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 2, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Ronald H. Butler, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and James M. La Neve, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




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






/s/ Ronald H. Butler


Ronald H. Butler


Chairman and Chief Executive Officer


May 17, 2011




/s/ James M. La Neve


James M. La Neve


Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


May 17, 2011
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7658

MARIA D. GARIBAY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

BEAUFORT COUNTY COURT SHERIFF; BIANCA HARRIS, Warden,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (5:10-hc-2239-BO)

Submitted: March 29, 2012 Decided: April 3, 2012

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Maria D. Garibay, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, 

Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Maria D. Garibay seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing as untimely her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) 

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(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. 

In her informal brief, Garibay has failed to address 

the district court’s dispositive timeliness analysis. 

Therefore, Garibay has forfeited appellate review of the 

district court’s ruling. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ex rel. Robert GATEWOOD, Appellant, v. Edward J. HENDRICK, Superintendent of County Prisons, et al.

No. 15872.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 20, 1966.

Decided Nov. 2, 1966.

Certiorari Denied Feb. 13, 1967.

See 87 S.Ct. 899.

*180Robert Gatewood, pro se.

Matthew W. Bullock, Jr., Edward G. Bauer, Jr., City Sol., Philadelphia, Pa., (Beryl E. Hoffman, Asst. City Sol., Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellees.

Before MARIS, McLAUGHLIN and KALODNER, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

This is in effect a civil action, quite improperly captioned, by Robert Gate-wood, a prisoner in the Philadelphia County Prison, for damages under section 1979 of the Revised Statutes, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983, for alleged deprivation under color of state law of rights secured by the federal Constitution and laws. What Gatewood complains of is alleged improper medical treatment by the prison authorities. This, however, if true was not a denial of rights secured by the federal Constitution or laws. Threatt v. State of North Carolina, D.C.N.C.1963, 221 F.Supp. 858. Gatewood’s claim is, therefore, not cognizable under section 1979 of the Revised Statutes, the Civil Rights Act of 1871, as the district court quite properly held. United States ex rel. Lawrence v. Ragen, 7 Cir. 1963, 323 F.2d 410; Snow v. Gladden, 9 Cir. 1964, 338 F.2d 999.

The order of the district court will be affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM BALANCE
SHEET AND INCOME STATEMENT AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<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>                                          21,539
<SECURITIES>                                    74,136
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,331
<ALLOWANCES>                                       100
<INVENTORY>                                        397
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                97,881
<PP&E>                                           5,035
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,458
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  99,880
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,927
<BONDS>                                            388
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       158,104
<OTHER-SE>                                    (67,539)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    99,880
<SALES>                                         15,118
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                31,146
<CGS>                                            2,979
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,979
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                34,286
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   100
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 207
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,314)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,314)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.15)


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7608
ROBERT LEWIS JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; RICHLAND COUNTY;RICHARD A. HARPOOTLIAN, Solicitor, 5th Judicial Circuit; RICHLAND COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; UNION DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY; ALLEN SLOAN, Sheriff of Richland County; JIM PALMER; ELIZABETH HANCOCK; BEAU MOORE, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-3009-6-3-AK) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 4, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Lewis Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Johnson v. South Carolina , No. CA-95-3009-6-3AK (D.S.C. Oct. 5, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

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

 

I, Andrew K. Moller,Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Christopher &Banks Corporation (the “Company”) certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adoptedpursuant 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 August 30, 2008 as filed with theUnited States Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities 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: October 9,  2008 |
|-----------------------------|
|                        |
|                        | By: | /s/ Andrew K. Moller |   |
|                        | Andrew K. Moller

*Executive Vice President   and Chief Financial Officer* |

 

# ** **

# ****

# ** **
From: Amir Fanai

To: LEVIN, NANCY

Cc: dburch@baaqmd.gov

Subject: Your request for information on Bay Area Emissions Inventory

Date: Thursday, September 26, 2013 9:59:17 AM

Attachments: 2013 Update_7.9 PavedRds Meth growth deleted.pdf

Winter Survey Report "05-"06 1.1T.pdf

2011Dieseloffroadappd.pdf

Hi Nancy

Following our telephone conversation regarding District’s Particulate Matter Emissions Inventory

published in our 2012 report “Understanding Particulate Matter”, please find attached supporting

documents for the relevant source categories:

1. ARB’s Methodology for estimating Paved Road Dust Emissions, which includes references to

EPA’s methodology documents,

2. Winter Wood-Burning Survey for 05-06’ used for estimating winter-time emissions from

residential fuel combustion from wood-stoves and fireplaces,

3. An overview of “In-Use Off-Road Equipment” OFFROAD 2011 model (Construction,

Industrial, Airport Ground Support and Oil Drilling) Page D-1

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/categories.htm#offroad_motor_vehicles

If you have additional questions, please let me know.

Amir

415-749-4649
#### STATE OF CONNECTICUT *v.*EDWARD T. CAPRILOZZI

*F. Mac Buckley,*in support of the petition.

*Peter A. McShane,*assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided October 22, 1997

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 45 Conn. App. 455 (AC 15211), is denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6577 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6577

 To amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to require 
 the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to appoint amicus curiae 
assist such court in the consideration of each application for an order 
                  or review under title I of that Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 4, 2023

  Mr. Lieu (for himself and Mr. Buck) introduced the following bill; 
 which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition 
 to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to require 
 the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to appoint amicus curiae 
assist such court in the consideration of each application for an order 
                  or review under title I of that Act.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting Americans from 
Unauthorized Surveillance Act''.

SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE COURT TO 
              APPOINT AMICUS CURIAE.

    Section 103(i) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 
(50 U.S.C. 1803(i)) is amended--
            (1) by amending paragraph (2) to read as follows:
            ``(2) Requirement.--A court established under subsection 
        (a) or (b), consistent with the requirement of subsection (c) 
        and any other statutory requirement that the court act 
        expeditiously or within a stated time, shall appoint an 
        individual who has been designated under paragraph (1) to serve 
        as amicus curiae to assist such court in the consideration of 
        each application for an order or review under this title.'';
            (2) in paragraph (4), by striking ``If a court established 
        under subsection (a) or (b) appoints an amicus curiae under 
        paragraph (2)(A)'' and inserting ``An amicus curiae appointed 
        under paragraph (2)(A)'';
            (3) in paragraph (6)(A), by striking ``If a court 
        established under subsection (a) or (b) appoints an amicus 
        curiae under paragraph (2), the amicus curiae'' and inserting 
        ``An amicus curiae appointed under paragraph (2)(A)''; and
            (4) by repealing paragraph (7).
                                 <all>
```
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-10048

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GREGORIO MARTINEZ-GARCIA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:98-CR-221-6-X

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

October 19, 1999

Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Court-appointed counsel for Gregorio Martinez-Garcia has

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent

review of the brief, Martinez-Garcia’s response, and the record

discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel’s motion

for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 5th Cir.

R. 42.2.