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

Nos. 11-71906, 12-70201

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted September 11, 2017 San Francisco, California

Filed October 20, 2017

Anna Benvenue, Attorney, Robert Bradford Jobe, Esquire, Attorney, Law Office of Robert B, Jobe, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner

OIL, Lori Warlick, Andrew B. Insenga, Trial Attorneys, 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 and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges, and WHALEY,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Robert H. Whaley, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Daria Nikoayevna Korzhina, a native and citizen of Russia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.

On appeal, she contends the BIA’s denial of her petition was not supported by substantial evidence and that the record compels the conclusion that the harm she suffered rose to the level of persecution. *See INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 483, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). Korzhina also argues the BIA should have granted her motion to reopen to present evidence showing country conditions have changed, and seeks a remand for that purpose.

The government does not defend the agency decision on the merits. It contends the BIA exceeded the scope of its review by engaging in improper fact finding under *Ridore v. Holder,*696 F.3d 907 (9th Cir. 2012). The government asks us to remand for the BIA to address the merits of the Immigration Judge’s decision and motion to reopen. In her reply, Petitioner contends that because the government waived any arguments going to the merits of her position, her petition must be granted. *See Clem v. Lomeli,*566 F.3d 1177, 1182 (9th *676Cir. 2009) (arguments not raised in an answering brief are waived).

We are faced with the unusual situation in which the parties effectively agree the BIA erred in how it handled Petitioner’s application. Granting the petition to reopen would permit both parties to offer evidence to help resolve the application in light of current country conditions. Under such circumstances, the motion to reopen should be granted. Ms. Korzhina’s petition for review of the BIA’s denial of her motion to reopen is GRANTED, and we remand on an open record to allow the BIA to resolve the application in light of cur-' rent country conditions.

Petition GRANTED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Janice Wolk GRENADIER, (JWG) Relator, EX REL. UNITED STATES of America (USA), Plaintiff, and George McDermott, Intervenor-Appellant, v. State of VIRGINIA, (COA) C/O City Attorney James Bank, Their public servants, as individuals & in their official capacity as an officer of the Court, gov’t employee, elected officials. Those listed below working as public servants for mentioned St/dept of USA; City of Alexandria, Virginia (COA) C/O City Attorney James Bank, Their public servants, as individuals & in their official capacity as an officer of the Court, gov’t employee, elected officials. Those listed below working as public servants for mentioned St/ dept of USA; Federal Bureau of Investigation, (FBI) C/O James Comey, Their public servants, as individuals & in their official capacity as an officer of the Court, government employee, elected officials. Those listed below working as public servants for the mentioned St/dept of the USA; Department of Justice, (DOJ) C/O Acting Chief Justice, Their public servants, as individuals & in their official capacity as an officer of the Court, government employee, elected officials. Those listed below working as public servants for the mentioned St/dept of the USA, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1335

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 24, 2017

Decided: August 28, 2017

George Edward McDermott, Appellant Pro Se.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

George Edward McDermott appeals the district court’s order denying his motions to intervene and for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. *McDermott v. Virginia,*No. 1:17-cv-00166-TSE-MSN (E.D. Va. Mar. 1 & 8, 2017). 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*
#### Andrew Phillips NICHOLS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, FCI BEAUMONT LOW, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-41237 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 3, 2017

Jeremy B. Gordon, Jeremy Gordon, P.L.L.C., Mansfield, TX, for Petitioner-Appellant

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Andrew Phillips Nichols, federal prisoner # 07945-010, was convicted of producing visual depictions of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) and (e), and was sentenced to 210 months of imprisonment and a lifetime of supervised release. He appeals the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which he argued that he is actually innocent of the offense of conviction. His conclusional argument that the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) is unconstitutionally vague fails to show that the district court erred in *325dismissing his § 2241 petition. *See Pack v. Yusuff,*218 F.3d 448, 451-52 (5th Cir. 2000).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

**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 35.1
                  SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)
                        RESIDENTIAL FUNDING COMPANY, LLC
             RASC SERIES 2006-EMX9 TRUST (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")

The undersigned,  a duly authorized officer of Residential Funding Company, LLC,
as servicer (the  "Servicer")  pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing  Agreement,
dated as of October 27, 2006 (as amended  from time to time,  the  "Agreement"),
among  Residential  Asset  Securities  Corporation,  as  depositor,  Residential
Funding Company, LLC, as master servicer, and U.S. Bank National Association, as
trustee,  does hereby  certify  that:

1.   A review of the  Servicer's  activities  during the  period  covered by the
     Issuing  Entity's  report  on Form 10-K and of the  Servicer's  performance
     under the Agreement has been made under my supervision.


2.   To the  best of my  knowledge,  based  on such  review,  the  Servicer  has
     fulfilled  all of its  obligations  under  the  Agreement  in all  material
     respects throughout such period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 26th
day of March 2007.

By:      /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
      ------------------------
      Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
      Title: Managing Director
<Page>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 31.02

                     RULE 13A-14(a)/15D-14(a) CERTIFICATIONS

I, Michael L. Pungello, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of ML JWH Strategic Allocation Fund
L.P.;

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)) for the registrant and have:

   a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
   disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
   ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
   consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
   entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
   prepared;

   b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
   procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
   effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
   period covered by this report based on such evaluation;

   c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
   over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
   fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
   materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
   reporting; and

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 registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

   a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
   operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
   likely 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 or other
   employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
   over financial reporting.

Date: November 15, 2004

By /s/ MICHAEL L. PUNGELLO
   -----------------------
Michael L. Pungello
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
and Treasurer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)

                                       18
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       2,244,941
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       4,737,911
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 47,720,488
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                    294,319,524
<ALLOWANCE>                                  2,788,062
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             367,744,453
<DEPOSITS>                                 268,916,986
<SHORT-TERM>                                30,000,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          2,829,164
<LONG-TERM>                                 30,686,130
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        40,111
<OTHER-SE>                                  35,272,062
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             367,744,453
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              5,736,906
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              793,355
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             6,530,261
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           2,951,575
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,785,931
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        2,744,330
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   30,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              2,112,693
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,556,921
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   1,556,921
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,007,104
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.47
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.49
<LOANS-NON>                                    761,577
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             2,776,539
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   19,605
<RECOVERIES>                                     1,128
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            2,788,062
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         2,788,062
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOHANNA M. IMMELT, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

DEE SHARP, in her official capacity as 

Program Director; TAMBRA MCCOWAN, 

in her official capacity as Professional 

Licensing Manager, 

Defendants-Appellees, 

and 

STATE OF WASHINGTON 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING REAL 

ESTATE APPRAISER PROGRAM, 

Defendant.

No. 22-35249 

D.C. No. 3:20-cv-05617-BHS 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Benjamin H. Settle, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 21, 2023**

* 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

AUG 21 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, KLEINFELD, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Johanna Immelt appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment 

in her action alleging due process violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291. We review de novo, see, e.g., Holz v. Nenana City Public School Dist., 

347 F.3d 1176, 1179 (9th Cir. 2003), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment to the individual state 

officials. Any claims against the officials, sued in their official capacities and 

seeking money damages, were barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See Pennhurst 

State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 101-02 (1984). 

Any claims against the officials, sued in their official capacities and seeking 

prospective injunctive relief, were also barred by the Eleventh Amendment, 

because Immelt did not establish that the state regulations at issue were 

unconstitutional, or otherwise conflicted with federal authority. Id.

The district court properly determined that the officials were entitled to 

qualified immunity for any claims against them in their individual capacity, 

because Immelt failed to establish a constitutional violation. See, e.g., Ashcroft v. 

al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735 (2011) (qualified immunity shields state officials from 

money damages unless plaintiff shows, among other things, that the official 

violated a constitutional right).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Immelt’s motion to 
3 

reconsider, because Immelt failed to establish any colorable basis for 

reconsideration. See, e.g., Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 940, 945 (9th Cir. 

2003) (motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 

circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered 

evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the 

controlling law; it may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the 

first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation). 

AFFIRMED.
#### Milton F. Adams v. The Lamson Consolidated Store Service Co.

Motion to go to the court of appeals denied.
#### Melvin L. CHEATHAM, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARYLAND TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-1754

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 24, 2017

Decided: August 28, 2017

*650Melvin L. Cheatham, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Julie Theresa Sweeney, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Ap-pellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Melvin L. Cheatham, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his civil complaint for failure to state a claim. Defendant has moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Cheatham opposes the motion.’

Parties are accorded 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” *Bowles v. Russell,*551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on September 8, 2016. The notice of appeal was filed on June 20, 20Í7. Because Cheatham failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we grant Defendant’s motion 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*
EXHIBIT
32.2





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 Pegasus Tel, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John F.
Passalaqua, Secretary 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:





(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: March
      24, 2010
            
            /s/
      JOHN F. PASSALAQUAName:
      John F. Passalaqua
              Title:
      Secretary, Director and Chief Financial Officer,
              (Principal
      Financial Officer)
**Exhibit 32**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO**

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

**(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**

In connection with the Annual Report of Pipeline Data Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-K for the quarter ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), Randal McCoy, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and , Donald Gruneisen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, do each hereby certify,            pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to his 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 result of operations of the Company.

 

|   |                                  |   |   |                                                                |
|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| By:    | /s/ Randal A. McCoy                   |   | By:    | /s/Donald Gruneisen                                                 |
| Name:  | Randal A. McCoy                       |   | Name:  | Donald Gruneisen                                                    |
| Title: | Chief Executive Officer and President |   | Title: | Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |

 

|   |                                                              |   |   |   |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| By:    | /s/ MacAllister Smith                                             |   |   |   |
| Name:  | MacAllister Smith                                                 |   |   |   |
| Title: | Chief Executive Officer and President 

through February 17, 2009 |   |   |   |

 

Date: March 31, 2009

 

[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Pipeline Data Inc. and will be retained by Pipeline Data Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of
Pivotal Corporation on Form S-8 (No. 333-42460, 333-39922, 333-93607) of our
report dated July 23, 2003 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and
includes on explanatory paragraph relating to the change in method of accounting
for goodwill in accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standard No.
142), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30,
2003.



/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
Vancouver, Canada
September 29, 2003
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

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

 

I, Lorna E. Nagler, ChiefExecutive Officer of Christopher & Banks Corporation (the “Company”)certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.  The quarterly report of the Company on Form 10-Qfor the period ended August 29, 2009 as filed with the United StatesSecurities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange 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 8,  2009 |   |                                                    |
|-----------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------|
|                        |   |                                                    |
|                        | By:    | /s/ Lorna E. Nagler                                     |
|                        |   | Lorna E. Nagler *President and Chief Executive Officer* |

 

----