alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### YUCHAI CHEN Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General of the United States Respondent

No. 16-4049

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: July 7, 2017

Filed: July 21, 2017

Joshua E. Bardavid, Bardavid- Law, New York, NY, for Petitioner

Scott Baniecke, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, Bloomington, MN, Karen Yolanda Drummond, Carl H. McIntyre, David H. Wetmore, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent

*469Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Chinese citizen Yuchai Chen petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upholding an-Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) denial of her application for asylum and withholding of removal based on her Christian religion.1 We conclude that substantial evidence supports the determination that Chen did not establish either past persecution or that she had an objectively reasonable, well-founded fear of future persecution. See Yu An Li v. Holder, 745 F.3d 336, 340 (8th Cir. 2014) (standard of review); see also Singh v. Lynch, 803 F.3d 988, 991 (8th Cir. 2015) (persecution is extreme concept involving torture, infliction or threat of death, or injury to one’s freedom or person, on account of protected ground); Khrystotodorov v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 775, 781 (8th Cir. 2008) (substantial evidence standard is extremely deferential, and court will not overturn findings of fact unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to reach contrary findings); Singh v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 553, 556 (8th Cir. 2007) (to establish that fear of future persecution is objectively reasonable, alien must present credible, direct, and specific evidence that reasonable person in her position would fear persecution if returned to alien’s country). Thus, Chen did not establish that she qualified for asylum, see Singh, 803 F.3d at 991 (to qualify for asylum, alien must show she is unable or unwilling to return to native country due’ to persecution, or well-founded fear of future persecution, on account of protected ground); and her claim for withholding of removal necessarily failed as well, see Bracic v. Holder. 603 F.3d 1027, 1034-35 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard for withholding of removal is more rigorous than that for asylum). The petition for review is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. Chen does not seek review of her claim under the Convention Against Torture. See Wanyama v. Holder, 698 F.3d 1032, 1035 n.1 (8th Cir. 2012) (waiver of claim).
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 20

- 00125

- CV

Jimmy Ray Sepeda and Hortencia Sepeda, Appellant s

v.

Madison Revolving Trust 2017; Robert D. Campbell, Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.; and Shapiro Schwartz, LLP, Appellee s

FR OM THE 21ST DISTRICT COURT OF BASTROP COUNTY
NO. 1051

- 21, THE HONORABLE CARSON TALMADGE CAMPBELL, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Appellant s ’ brief on appeal was originally due June 26, 2020

. On appellants ’

motion , the time for filing was exten d ed to August 26, 2020

. Appellant s ha ve now filed a second

motion, requesting that the Court extend the time for filing appellant s ’ brief. We grant the

motion for extension of time and order appellant s to file a brief no later than October 19 , 2020

.

No furt her extension of time will be granted and failure to comply with this order may result in

dismissal of this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a).

It is ordered on October 2, 2020.

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Baker and Kelly
Order entered April 3, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00325-CV

STEPHANIE GAINES, Appellant

V.

GATEWOOD APTS., Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-13-00654-B

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case has not been filed. By letter dated January 21, 2014, we 

informed appellant that the Court Reporter notified us the reporter’s record had not been filed 

because appellant had not (1) requested the record; or (2) paid for or made arrangements to pay 

for the record. We directed appellant to provide the Court with written verification she had 

requested the record and had paid for or made arrangements to pay for the record, or had been 

found entitled to proceed without payment of costs. We cautioned appellant that failure to 

provide the required documentation within ten days might result in the appeal being ordered 

submitted without the reporter’s record. To date, appellant has not provided the required 

documentation or otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding the status of the reporter’s 
record. Therefore, we ORDER this appeal submitted without a reporter’s record. Appellant’s 

brief is due THIRTY DAYS from the date of this order.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
11 TH C OURT OF A PPEALS E ASTLAND , T EXAS J UDGMENT

ORO Pecanlands, Inc.
, * From the 220th District Court of Comanche County, Trial Court No. CV16014

.

Vs. No. 11

- 15

- 00172

- CV * November 19, 2015
Louisa Kaiser Company, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson, J. , and Bailey, J. )

This court has considered ORO Pecanlands, Inc.’s motion to dismiss its appeal and concludes that the motion should be granted. Therefore, in
accordance with this court ’ s opinion, the appeal is dismissed. The costs incurred by reason of this appeal are taxed again st ORO Pecanlands, Inc.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Francisco GARCIA-PUGA, also known as Ernesto Salas-Ibarra, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11676 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed September 20, 2017

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Jerry Van Beard, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, Laura S. Harper, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jose Francisco Garcia-Puga pleaded guilty to illegal reentry into the United States and was sentenced to 45 months of imprisonment and two years of supervised release. On appeal, he argues that his indictment did not allege that he had a prior conviction, and therefore, it was a violation of his due process rights for the district court to impose a sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). He contends that his sentence exceeds the statutory maximum sentence under § 1326(a).

The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance because Garcia-Puga’s argument is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). As Garcia-Puga concedes that his argument is foreclosed and is raised only to preserve it for further review, summary affirmance is appropriate. *See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis,*406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED. The judgment is AFFIRMED. The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED.

*

 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 Archive} Information Request 

Shaheerah Fateen to: jennifer.wilder 06/01/2004 11:24 AM

Bcc: Shaheerah Fateen

From: Shaheerah Fateen/R9/USEPA/US

To: jennifer.wilder@exxonmobil.com, 

Bcc: Shaheerah Fateen/R9/USEPA/US@EPA

Archive: This message is being viewed in an archive.

Jennifer, below is the information I requested regarding the other emissions units in the field at the 

McElmo Creek site. I'm drafting the Title V permit and need to complete the administrative record 

regarding the single source issue.

1. The emissions units (other than the units at the Gas plant) located within the McElmo Creek site

2. The dates of installation for each emissions unit

3. The actual emissions for NOx, SO2, VOC, CO, PM10, and HAPs from 1998 to 2003

4. The potential emissions for NOx, SO2, VOC, CO, PM10, and HAPs

5. The calculation method and any gas analysis done

6. The location of each emission unit, if known, in terms of range, township, and section

Can you let me know if it is possible to send the above info this week or early next week. Please let me 

know if gathering the info will take longer. 

Also, please let me know if you would like us to request this info in an official letter. 

Thanks.

 

Shaheerah Fateen

U S EPA Region 9, Air Division (AIR-3)

San Francisco, CA 94105

email: fateen.shaheerah@epa.gov

Phone: 415-947-4156

Fax: 415-947-3579
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 0 D0 32 8 . ROY LEE CHAMBERS, J R. v . THE STATE.

In 2 0 1 2
, a ju ry fo u n d Ro y Ch am b ers , J r., g u il t y o f arm ed ro b bery an d

o b s t r u ct i o n o f an o ffi cer, an d we affi rm ed h i s co n vi ct i o n s o n d irect ap p eal

. See
Ch a mb er s v. S t a t e , No

. A 1 5A1 6 1 7 (Au g

. 11
, 20 1 5 ). He l at er fi l ed an ex t rao rd i n ary

m o ti o n fo r a n ew t ri al
, w h ich t h e t ri al co urt d en ied i n an o rd er en t ered on J an u ary 3,
2 0 2 0

. On Feb ru ary 2 7
, 2 0 2 0
, Ch am b ers fi l ed t h is ap p li cat i o n fo r d i s cret i o n ary

rev i ew. W e l ack ju ri s d i ct i on

. An ap p l i cat i o n fo r di s cret i o n ary rev iew m us t b e fi l ed wi t h i n 3 0 d ay s o f en t ry

o f t h e o rd er o r ju d g m en t t o b e ap peal ed

. OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (d ). Th e req u i rem en t s o f
OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 are ju ri s d i ct i o n al
, an d t hi s Co u rt can n o t accep t an ap pl i cat i o n fo r
ap p eal n o t m ad e i n co m

p l i an ce t h erewi t h

. B o

yl e v. S ta t e , 1 9 0 Ga. Ap p

. 7 3 4
, 7 3 4 (3 8 0
SE2 d 5 7 ) (1 9 8 9 ). Ch am

b ers ’ s ap p l i cat i o n i s u n t i m el y , as it was fi l ed 5 5 d ay s aft er

en t ry of t h e o rd er h e s eek s to ap p eal

. A c c o r d i n g l y , th i s ap pl icat i o n is h ereb y DISM ISSED fo r l ack o f ju ri s d i ct i o n

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t
h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. March 20, 2020

03/20/2020
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)


         In  connection  with the  accompanying  Quarterly  Report of  Concierge
Technologies,  Inc.  (the  "Company")  on  Form  10-QSB  for the  quarter  ended
September 30, 2006 (the "Report"),  I, Allen E. Kahn, Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, hereby certify that to my knowledge:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. ss.78o(d)); and

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

Dated:  November 20, 2006

                                            /s/ Allen E. Kahn
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Allen E. Kahn
                                            Chairman and Chief Executive Officer


         The above  certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.  ss.1350)  and is not being filed as
part of the Form 10-QSB or as a separate disclosure document.














                                                                      Exhibit 32
                                                                Page 1 of 1 Page
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Veterans Affairs
 The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C., App. 2., that a virtual meeting of the Advisory Committee on Disability Compensation (Committee) will begin and end as follows: Date
TimeTuesday, March 15, 2022
9:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time).
 The virtual meeting is open to the public. The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on the maintenance and periodic readjustment of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities. The Committee is to assemble and review relevant information relating to the nature and character of disabilities arising during service in the Armed Forces, provide an ongoing assessment of the effectiveness of the rating schedule, and give advice on the most appropriate means of responding to the needs of Veterans relating to disability compensation. The agenda will include review and discussion of prior-year, Biennial Reports and beginning discussion on the 2022 Biennial Report. No time will be allocated during this virtual meeting for receiving oral presentations from the public. The public may submit one-page summaries of their written statements for the Committee's review. Public comments may be received no later than March 7, 2022, for inclusion in the official meeting record. Please send these comments to Sian Roussel of the Veterans Benefits Administration, Compensation Service, at 
                    *Sian.Roussel@va.gov.* Members of the public who wish to obtain a copy of the agenda should contact Sian Roussel at 
                    *Sian.Roussel@va.gov*
                     and provide their name, professional affiliation, email address and phone number. The call-in number (United States, Chicago) for those who would like to attend the meeting (audio only) is +1 872-701-0185; phone conference ID: 220 264 469#. Dated: February 28, 2022. Jelessa M. Burney, Federal Advisory Committee Management Officer.


[FR Doc. 2022-04504 Filed 3-2-22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S
FORM 10-Q FOR THE YEAR-TO-DATE AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-28-1996
<CASH>                                            5791
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   218968
<ALLOWANCES>                                      5939
<INVENTORY>                                     125496
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                349470
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                   18076
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  166025
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           255110
<BONDS>                                         223006
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           250
<OTHER-SE>                                      202819
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    784401
<SALES>                                         458911
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                458911
<CGS>                                           336059
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   336059
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               13352
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   3943
<INCOME-TAX>                                      1894
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               2049
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      2049
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Steven Marquain DAVIS Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-3526

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: May 26, 2017

Filed: June 1, 2017

Justin G. Davids, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Kansas City, MO, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Steven Marquain Davis, Pro Se

Before GRUENDER, ARNOLD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, Steven Davis challenges the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of Bank Robbery, 18 U.S.C. 2113(a), and one count of Use of a Firearm During a Crime of Violence, 18 U.S.C. 924(c) (1) (A) (ii), pursuant to a written plea agreement that contained a waiver of the right to challenge his conviction and sen-fence. Davis’s counsel moves to withdraw, and in a brief submitted under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), argues that the district court erred by imposing an unreasonable sentence that did not adequately and fully address the criteria enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

We conclude that the appeal waiver is enforceable, because our review of the record demonstrates that Davis entered into the plea agreement and the appeal waiver knowingly and voluntarily; the argument falls within the scope of the waiver; and no miscarriage of justice would result from enforcing the waiver. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of validity and applicability of appeal waiver); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 890-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (discussing enforcement of appeal waivers); see also Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir. 1997) (defendant’s statements made during plea hearing carry strong presumption of verity). Furthermore, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the waiver.

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion, and we dismiss this appeal.

1

. The Honorable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
#### NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. PUBLISHERS PRINTING COMPANY, INC., Respondent.

No. 80-1312.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

June 11, 1981.

*860Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, Jerry Wohlgemuth, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C., Emil C. Farkas, Director, Region 9, N.L. R.B., Cincinnati, Ohio, for petitioner.

John H. Doesburg, Phoenix, Ariz., for respondent.

Before LIVELY, MERRITT and KENNEDY, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

The National Labor Relations Board seeks enforcement of its o.rder finding Publishers Printing Company, Inc., in violation of § 8(aXl) and (3) of the Labor Management Relations Act. 246 NLRB No. 36. In affirming the decision of an administrative law judge, the Board found that respondent had coercively interrogated three employees, had threatened one employee that jobs would be lost if the plant were unionized, had threatened another employee with discharge for union activities and had threatened to withhold a wage increase from another employee because of her union support. The Board also found that § 8(a)(3) of the Act was violated by the discharge of Kenneth Johnson for union activities, the reprimand of Steven Gassman for such activities and the denial of a wage increase to Linda McCoy because of her union support. The order requires reinstatement of Kenneth Johnson with back pay, removal of the written notice of reprimand from Gassman’s file and payment to Linda McCoy of earnings lost by reason of the denial of a wage increase. The order also directs that notices be posted.

In this court the respondent contends that the credibility findings of the administrative law judge and the Board should be disregarded because the testimony of the employees is “self serving and uncorroborated.” This argument overlooks the fact that respondent based its case primarily on the testimony of its president and that such testimony could be considered equally self serving and uncorroborated. The respondent also argues that it was unaware of any union organizational activity during the period of the activities which were found to be unfair labor practices. There is evidence to support the contrary finding of the Board.

Upon consideration of the briefs and oral arguments of counsel together with the record on appeal the court concludes that the decision of the Board is supported by substantial evidence. Questions of credibility, the weight of evidence and the inferences to be drawn from evidence are determinations to be made by the administrative fact-finder rather than a reviewing court.

The order of the Board is enforced.
# Az Európai Unió C 11A/2014

| | ISSN 1977-0979
  doi:10.3000/19770979.CA2014.011.hun |
| --- | --- |
| Az Európai Unió
  Hivatalos Lapja | C 11A |
| | |
| Magyar nyelvű kiadás | Tájékoztatások és közlemények | 57. évfolyam2014. január 15. |

ISSN 1977-0979

doi:10.3000/19770979.CA2014.011.hun

Az Európai Unió

Hivatalos Lapja

C 11A

Magyar nyelvű kiadás

Tájékoztatások és közlemények

57. évfolyam2014. január 15.

---

| Közleményszám | Tartalom | Oldal |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Helyesbítések |
| 2014/C 011A/01 | Helyesbítés a franciaországi székhelyű Európai Vasúti Ügynökség (ERA) ügyvezető igazgatói álláshelyének betöltéséről szóló pályázati felhíváshoz (Ideiglenes alkalmazott – AD 14-es besorolás) – COM/2014/10345 (HL C 6. A, 2014.1.10.) | 1 |

Közleményszám

Tartalom

Oldal

Helyesbítések

2014/C 011A/01

Helyesbítés a franciaországi székhelyű Európai Vasúti Ügynökség (ERA) ügyvezető igazgatói álláshelyének betöltéséről szóló pályázati felhíváshoz (Ideiglenes alkalmazott – AD 14-es besorolás) – COM/2014/10345 (HL C 6. A, 2014.1.10.)

(HL C 6. A, 2014.1.10.)

1

A HL C A VERSENYVIZSGA ÁTTEKINTÉSE

Itt találja a Hivatalos Lap C A sorozata idei publikációinak listáját.

Ellenkező jelzés híján, a HL-számok valamennyi nyelvi változatban elérhetők.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 6 | |
| 11 | |

5

6

11

| HU | |
| --- | --- |

HU

---

Helyesbítések

| 15.1.2014 | HU | Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja | CA 11/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2014

HU

Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja

CA 11/1

---

Helyesbítés a franciaországi székhelyű Európai Vasúti Ügynökség (ERA) ügyvezető igazgatói álláshelyének betöltéséről szóló pályázati felhíváshoz

(Ideiglenes alkalmazott – AD 14-es besorolás)

COM/2014/10345

(
  Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja C 6. A, 2014. január 10.
  )

(2014/C 11 A/01)

A 4. oldalon, a „Jelentkezési eljárás” című részben a harmadik bekezdésben található link helyesen:

„https://ec.europa.eu/dgs/human-resources/seniormanagementvacancies/”.

---