alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Elipdio RAMIREZ-DORANTES, AKA Elpidio Ramirez Dorantes, AKA Elpidio Dorantes Ramirez, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-73647

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*433Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 19, 2017

Thomas A. Lappin, Esquire, Attorney, Law Office of Thomas A. Lappin, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner

OIL, David H. Wetmore, Attorney, Andrea Gevas, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Óffice of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM *

Elipdio Ramirez-Dorantes, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo claims of due process violations. *Mohammed v. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion or violate due process in denying Ramirez-Dorantes’ motion to reopen for failure to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel, where he did not refute his former counsel’s statements regarding the reasoning for the strategy employed or that former counsel had discussed Ramirez-Do-rantes’ options with him. *See id.*at 793 (to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel, an alien must show counsel failed to perform with sufficient competence); *Torres-Chavez v. Holder,*567 F.3d 1096, 1101 (9th Cir. 2009) (aliens are generally bound by strategic and tactical decisions made by their attorneys); *Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (to prevail on a due process challenge, an alien must show error and prejudice).

To the extent Ramirez-Dorantes contends his former counsel erred in failing to advise him that the agency misapplied the law to the facts of his case, we lack jurisdiction to consider this unexhausted contention. *See Tijani v. Holder,*628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (“We lack jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented in an alien’s administrative proceedings before the BIA”). To the extent petitioner challenges the BIA’s July 2015 order dismissing his appeal, this petition is not timely as to that order. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1).

In light of this decision, we need not reach Ramirez-Dorantes’ contentions regarding prejudice from any alleged ineffective assistance of counsel.

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.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Elias Miguel BARRERA-MEDINA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-10173

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 14, 2016 *

Filed December 19, 2016

Jason Hitt, USSAC—Office of the US Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

*965Elias Miguel Barrera-Medina, Pro Se

Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Elias Miguel Barrera-Medina appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Barrera-Medina contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We review de novo whether a district court had authority to modify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2). *See United States v. Leniear,*574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009). The district court correctly concluded that Barrera-Medina is ineligible for a sentence reduction because Amendment 782 did not lower his applicable sentencing range. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); *Leniear,*574 F.3d at 673-74.

Barrera-Medina’s challenges to the sentencing court’s drug quantity calculations are not cognizable in a section 3582(c)(2) proceeding. *See Dillon v. United States,*560 U.S. 817, 826, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010) (section 3582(c)(2) authorizes “only a limited adjustment to an otherwise final sentence and not a plenary resentencing proceeding”).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Charles Oberle, Resp’t, v. The Lang Mfg. Co., App’lt.

Judgment reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide event, unless plain tiff stipulate within twenty days to deduct from the recovery $10.66, being amount of judgment in city court; if it be so stipulated, judgment, as so modified, affirmed, with costs.
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 02080

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2File Name3

Description

x 02080\02080_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

02080\02080_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

x 02080\02080_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file

02080\Certification Statement Plant ID 02080.pdf Plant certification statement

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket. 

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

3

 No hardcopy log is included for this plant as no hardcopy materials were received.
[771 NYS2d 787]

#### In the Matter of Mark D. Grossman, an Attorney, Respondent. Grievance Committee of the Eighth Judicial District, Petitioner.

Fourth Department,

February 11, 2004

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Susan M. Eagan, Associate Counsel, Eighth Judicial District Grievance Committee,*Buffalo, for petitioner.

*Richard T. Sullivan,*Buffalo, for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

*212Respondent was admitted to the practice of law by this Court on February 18, 1981, and maintains an office for the practice of law in Niagara Falls. The Grievance Committee filed a petition charging respondent with acts of misconduct arising from his arrest on a charge of petit larceny that was adjourned in contemplation of dismissal and ultimately dismissed in July 2003. In his answer, respondent denied material allegations of the petition, and a referee was appointed to conduct a hearing. Prior to the hearing, respondent filed an amended answer admitting the allegations of the petition.

We conclude that respondent violated the following Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

> DR 1-102 (a) (4) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [4])—engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; and

> DR 1-102 (a) (7) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [7])—engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness as a lawyer.

We have considered the matters submitted by respondent in mitigation, including that the misconduct occurred at a time when he was suffering from severe emotional stress. Accordingly, after consideration of all the factors in this matter, we conclude that respondent should be censured.

Pine, J.P., Wisner, Scudder, Gorski and Lawton, JJ., concur.

Order of censure entered.
i 3W5

ELECTRONIC RECORD

COA # 07-14-00182-CR OFFENSE: 1

Salvador Fernandez Mirola v. The

STYLE: state ofTexas COUNTY: Childress

COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED TRIAL COURT: 100th District Court

DATE: 04/30/2015 Publish: NO TC CASE #: 5635

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Salvador Fernandez Mirola

STYLE: State of Texas

v. The

Petition

CCA#: %*****

APPELLANTS

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

CCA Disposition:

DATE:

1 KcFl&ZD JUDGE:

DATE: fo/ol/wS'

JUDGE: Jui UuU4>-

SIGNED: PC:

PUBLISH: DNP:

MOTION FOR

REHEARING IN CCA IS:

JUDGE:

ELECTRONIC RECORD
**EXHIBIT        32.1**

**CERTIFICATION        PURSUANT TO **

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

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

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

| By:    | /s/                  Mark R. Newburg                                                                                                               |   Dated:             | December                  9, 2005 |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
|   | Mark                  R. Newburg                                                                                                                   |                           |                              |
| Title: | President,                  Chief Executive Officer                  and Treasurer                  (Principal                  Executive Officer) |                           |                              |
|   |                                                                                                                                               |                           |                              |
| By:    | /s/                  Arnaldo F. Galassi                                                                                                            |                    Dated: | December                  9, 2005 |
|   | Arnaldo                  F. Galassi                                                                                                                |                           |                              |
| Title: | Chief                  Financial Officer and Secretary (Principal                  Financial Officer)                                              |                           |                              |

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           5,416
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   34,321
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,310
<INVENTORY>                                     11,202
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                54,421
<PP&E>                                          24,828
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,977
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 139,918
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,836
<BONDS>                                         13,130
<COMMON>                                           126
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     103,333
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   139,918
<SALES>                                         43,042
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                43,042
<CGS>                                           31,854
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   31,854
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              (39,209)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 300
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,411
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,501
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,910
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,910
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.15
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.1




                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In  connection  with the Annual  Report on Form 10-K of Primecore  Mortgage
Trust, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended December 31, 2002 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,  Susan  Fox,  Chief  Executive  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 result of operations of the Partnership.


/s/ SUSAN FOX
-----------------------
Susan Fox, Chief Executive Officer
of Primecore Mortgage Trust, Inc.
March 31, 2003







<PAGE>


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In  connection  with the Annual  Report on Form 10-K of Primecore  Mortgage
Trust,  Inc. (the  "Company")  for the period ended  December 31, 2002 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 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 result of operations of the Partnership.


/s/ MICHAEL RIDER
--------------------------
Michael Rider, Chief Financial Officer
of Primecore Mortgage Trust, Inc.
March 31, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           5,868
<SECURITIES>                                    17,188
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,576
<ALLOWANCES>                                       300
<INVENTORY>                                      2,296
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                31,187
<PP&E>                                           4,003
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,487
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  45,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,526
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            72
<OTHER-SE>                                      41,402
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    45,000
<SALES>                                          7,976
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,976
<CGS>                                            3,150
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,819
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,294
<INCOME-TAX>                                       826
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,468
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,468
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.22
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of the Settlement of the Accounts of Wm. L. Denton, Ex’r, etc.

Motion for re-argument.

Dykman, J.

This is an application for a re-argument upon the question respecting the allowance of $500, made by the surrogate to the counsel for the respondent, and it must fail.

The question was fully examined when the case was before us and there was no oversight or misapprehension.

Motion denied, without costs.

Barnard, P. J., and Pratt, J., concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramiro OCHOA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-4738

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 25, 2017

Decided: May 1, 2017

•Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Jaclyn L. DiLauro, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant.

John Stuart Bruce, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, First Assistant United States Attorney, Barbara D. Kocher, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before KING, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

While on supervised release, Ramiro Ochoa shot his wife and then left his judicial district without permission. Ochoa appeals from the two-year revocation sentence imposed following these two supervision violations, and we affirm.

Where, as here, a defendant fails to object to the court’s sentencing explanation, we review for plain error, *United States v. Webb,*738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013), and “will not disturb a district court’s revocation sentence unless it falls outside the statutory maximum or is otherwise plainly unreasonable,” *United States v. Padgett,*788 F.3d 370, 373 (4th Cir;) (internal quotation marks omitted), *cert. denied,*— U.S.—, 136 S.Ct. 494, 193 L.Ed.2d 360 (2015). Before imposing a revocation sentence, the district court “must consider both the policy statements and the applicable policy statement range found in Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines manual, as well as the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” *Id.*(brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). “Chapter Seven instructs that, in fashioning a revocation sentence, the court should sanction primarily the defendant’s breach of trust, while taking into account, to a limited degree, the seriousness of the underlying violation and the criminal histoly of the violator.” *Webb,*738 F.3d at 641 (citing U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ch. 7, pt. A(3)(b)).

Here, the district court correctly calculated the policy statement range to be 24 months, and appropriately considered Ochoa’s personal history and characteristics in fashioning a sentence that punished the serious breach of trust resulting from Ochoa’s grievous criminal conduct. We see no basis to disturb Ochoa’s presumptively reasonable sentence. *Padgett,*788 F.3d at 373.*

*306Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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.

*AFFIRMED*

*

 Ochoa’s other challenge to his sentence concerns a double jeopardy claim that, as Ochoa concedes, could have merit only if the Supreme Court overturned its decision in *Abbate v. United States,*359 U.S. 187, 79 S.Ct. 666, 3 L.Ed.2d 729 (1959). Because *Abbate*remains good law, this claim must fail.
EXHIBIT 23.1




CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements Nos. 333-109495 and 333-143292 on Form S-3 and Nos. 333-34156, 333-122242 ,333-137379, 333-153670 and 333-161312 on Form S-8 of our report, dated March 17, 2011, relating to the financial statements of deltathree, Inc. (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph regarding the  Company's ability to continue as going concern) appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of deltathree, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2010.




/s/ Brightman Almagor Zohar & Co.


Brightman Almagor Zohar & Co.


Certified Public Accountants,


A member firm of  Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu




Tel Aviv, Israel


March 17, 2011
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT 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 Depomed, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Carl A. Pelzel, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

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

 

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

 
|   | Date: May 7,  2008  |
|--------|--------------------------|
|   |                     |
|   |                     |
|   | /s/ Carl A.  Pelzel      |
|   | Carl A. Pelzel           |
|   | President and            |
|   | Chief Executive  Officer |

 

----
#### PEOPLE v. KELLEY.

Criminar Law — Jury—Voir Dire — Objection.

Failure by defense attorney, aware of social relationship of a potential juror to one of witnesses in a criminal case, to object to seating of the juror on *voir dire*examination forecloses objection on appeal.

Reference for Points in Headnote

5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 628.

Appeal from Hillsdale, McIntyre (Robert W.), J.

Submitted Division 2 June 5, 1968, at Lansing.

(Docket No. 4,306.)

Decided June 24, 1968.

Leslie Kelley was convicted by a jury of willfully obstructing and resisting peace officers attempting to serve a warrant and in tbeir efforts to preserve and maintain the peace.

Affirmed.

*Frank J. Kelley,*Attorney General, *Robert A. Derengoski,*Solicitor General, and *Lawrence L. Hayes,*Chief Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.

*Charles G. Gibbons,*for defendant.

Per Curiam.

Defendant was convicted by a jury of willfully obstructing and resisting peace officers attempting to serve a warrant and to preserve and maintain the peace. CL 1948, § 750.479 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev §28.747). Defendant appeals claiming *707the trial court erred by allowing a potential juror having a social relationship with one of the witnesses to remain on the jury. In reviewing the record it reveals that defense counsel was aware of the relationship and when asked if he was satisfied with the jury for cause replied “Yes, sir.” Defendant’s failure to object at the *voir dire*examination indicating his satisfaction of the jury, forecloses his objection on appeal.

Affirmed.

Lesinski, C. J., and Burns and Fenlon, JJ., concurred.