alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Karen AMAYA-BRIONES, Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent

No. 16-60656 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed September 22, 2017

*416Zulu Abdullah Ali, Riverside, CA, for Petitioner

Matthew Albert Connelly, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Karen Amaya-Briones, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions this court to review the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying her second motion to reopen in absentia removal proceedings. She argues that the immigration judge (IJ) erred by determining that her motion, which was based on changed country conditions, was barred by time and number limitations. She also argues that she has made a prima facie showing of eligibility for relief from removal.

This court reviews the BIA’s order and will consider the IJ’s underlying decision if it influenced the BIA’s determination. *Gomez-Palacios v. Holder,*560 F.3d 354, 358 (5th Cir. 2009). Here, the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision but provided independent reasons for that decision. In so doing, the BIA treated Amaya-Briones’s second motion to reopen as a motion based on changed country conditions. Thus, this court will not review the IJ’s treatment of the motion. *See Gomez-Palacios,*560 F.3d at 358.

The BIA determined, inter alia, that Amaya-Briones failed to establish changed country conditions in Honduras since the time of her removal. None of the evidence submitted by Amaya-Briones provided any meaningful comparison between relevant conditions in Honduras in 2004 and 2015. *See Ramos-Lopez v. Lynch,*823 F.3d 1024, 1026 (5th Cir. 2016); *Panjwani v. Gonzales,*401 F.3d 626, 632 (5th Cir. 2005). Thus, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen. *See Ramos-Lopez,*823 F.3d at 1026; *Barrios-Cantarero v. Holder,*772 F.3d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 2014). We therefore do not reach Amaya-Briones’s argument that she established prima facie eligibility for relief from removal.

Amaya-Briones’s petition for review is DENIED.

*

**Pursuant to 5th Cíe. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-2000
<CASH>                                       1,497,382
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               30,188,156
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,913,867
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            43,880,468
<PP&E>                                      35,159,208
<DEPRECIATION>                              11,990,027
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             137,400,920
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       35,761,327
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       247,119
<OTHER-SE>                                  54,637,788
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               137,400,920
<SALES>                                    124,441,074
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           124,441,074
<CGS>                                       91,234,919
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               91,234,919
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            29,054,683
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               848,751
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,886,821
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                596,829
<INCOME-TAX>                                   274,065
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            322,764
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   322,764
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01


</TABLE>
## F I F T H 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5 D 202 3

- 0342 LT Case No

. 16

- 2020

- CF

- 008854

- AXXX

____________________________
J USTINA L YNN W RIGHT , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On a ppeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Adrian G. Soud, Judge

. Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Victoria Rose Cordero, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Michael Schaub, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

June 18, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
W ALLIS , J AY , and H ARRIS , JJ., concur

.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________
#### Norman Douglas DIAMOND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-56100

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 19, 2017

Norman Douglas Diamond, Pro Se

Robert Joel Branman, Esquire, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division/Appellate Section, Washington, DC, James Costello Hughes, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USLA — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Ap-pellee

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 **

Norman Douglas Diamond appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his damages action under 26 U.S.C. § 7433 arising from various interactions with defendant involving his federal income taxes. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. *Harger v. Dep’t of Labor,*569 F.3d 898, 903 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Diamond’s action without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Diamond failed to show his claims fell within a waiver of sovereign immunity. *See Holloman v. Watt,*708 F.2d 1399, 1401 (9th Cir. 1983) (waiver of sovereign immunity “must be unequivocally expressed,” and “[t]he party who sues the United States bears the burden of pointing to such an unequivocal waiver of immunity” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); *Miller v. United States,*66 F.3d 220, 222-23 (9th Cir. 1995) (waiver of sovereign immunity *446under § 7433 permitting taxpayers to sue for misconduct in collection of taxes does not extend to improper determination or assessment of taxpayer’s liabilities); *see also Shwarz v. United States,*234 F.3d 428, 433 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Section 7433 creates a private right of action only for tax collection activity that violates some provision of the Revenue Code or the regulations promulgated thereunder.”).

We reject as meritless Diamond’s contentions that he was improperly denied discovery and injunctive relief,

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments, allegations, or evidence raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009); *Kirshner v. Uniden Corp. of Am.,*842 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1988).

Diamond’s motions for leave .to file supplemental briefs (Docket Entry Nos. 39, 41) are granted. The Clerk shall file the supplemental briefs (Docket Entry Nos, 40, 42).

All other pending motions and requests (Docket Entry Nos. 2, 6) are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 7382

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.
DAMIAN ANTONIO MURPHY , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Abingdon

. James P. Jones , Senior District Judge. ( 1:06

- cr - 00062

- JPJ

- PMS

- 1 )

Submitted : January 20, 2022 Decided: January 25, 2022

Before WILKINSON , DIAZ , and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Damian Antonio Murphy, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-7382 Doc: 8 Filed: 01/25/2022 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Damian Antonio Murphy appeals the district court’s order deny ing his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to Section 404(b) of the First Step Act , Pub. L. No. 115

- 391, 132 Stat. 5194, 5239 . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. See Terry
v. United States , 141 S. Ct. 1858 , 1862

- 64 (2021) (holding that 21 U.S.C. § 846(b)(1)(C) is not a covered offense under the First Step Act). Accordingly, we affirm the district
court’s order

. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the m aterials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 21-7382 Doc: 8 Filed: 01/25/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of Appeals2976616-MAR-201108:14 AM
#### George P. Avert, Resp’t, *v.*William H. Jacob, Ex’r, *et al.,*App’lts.

Appeal by defendants from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, entered upon the report of a referee.

*E. Luther Hamilton (Austen G. Fox,*of counsel), for app’lts; *E. H. Benn,*for resp’t.

Freedman, J.

The questions presented by the appeal bring the facts which are complicated. There is no controversy as to the law applicable to the case. The facts, and all questions arising thereon, have been fully discussed by the referee in an elaborate opinion, and a careful examination of the whole case has failed to disclose any error committed by him.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs, on the opinion of the referee.

Sedgwick, Oh. J., and McAdam, J., concur.
# Euroopa Liidu C 11A/2014

| | ISSN 1977-0898
  doi:10.3000/19770898.CA2014.011.est |
| --- | --- |
| Euroopa Liidu
  Teataja | C 11A |
| | |
| Eestikeelne väljaanne | Teave ja teatised | 57. köide15. jaanuar 2014 |

ISSN 1977-0898

doi:10.3000/19770898.CA2014.011.est

Euroopa Liidu

Teataja

C 11A

Eestikeelne väljaanne

Teave ja teatised

57. köide15. jaanuar 2014

---

| Teatis nr | Sisukord | Lehekülg |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Parandused |
| 2014/C 011A/01 | Teate (Euroopa Raudteeagentuuri (asukohaga Prantsusmaal) tegevdirektori vaba ametikoha kohta (ajutine töötaja — palgaaste AD 14)) — COM/2014/10345 parandus (ELT C 6 A, 10.1.2014) | 1 |

Teatis nr

Sisukord

Lehekülg

Parandused

2014/C 011A/01

Teate (Euroopa Raudteeagentuuri (asukohaga Prantsusmaal) tegevdirektori vaba ametikoha kohta (ajutine töötaja — palgaaste AD 14)) — COM/2014/10345 parandus (ELT C 6 A, 10.1.2014)

(ELT C 6 A, 10.1.2014)

1

Ülevaade ELT C-seeria A-osas avaldatud konkursiteadetest

Allpool on esitatud loetelu käesoleva aasta C-seeria A-osas avaldatust.

Kui ei ole märgitud teisiti, on ELTd trükitud kõigis keeltes.

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

5

6

11

| ET | |
| --- | --- |

ET

---

Parandused

| 15.1.2014 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | CA 11/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2014

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

CA 11/1

---

Teate (Euroopa Raudteeagentuuri (asukohaga Prantsusmaal) tegevdirektori vaba ametikoha kohta

(ajutine töötaja — palgaaste AD 14))

COM/2014/10345 parandus

(
  Euroopa Liidu Teataja C 6 A, 10. jaanuar 2014
  )

(2014/C 11 A/01)

Leheküljel 4 pealkirja „Avalduste esitamise kord” all kolmandas lõigus olev link asendatakse järgmisega:

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

---
#### Harriet M. LIEDTKE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ria RUNNINGEN; Timberland Partners; City of Burnsville; Matthew Smith; Fairview Health Services; Dakota County; Angela Elwell; Joe Dalager, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1003

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: September 5, 2017

Filed: September 8, 2017

Harriet M. Liedtke, Pro Se

Ria Runningen, Pro Se

Brooke C. Nelson, Malcolm Peter Terry, Bernick *&*Lifson, Minneapolis, MN, for Defendant-Appellee Timberland Partners

Ryan Michael Zipf, League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust, Saint Paul, MN, for Defendants-Appellees City of Burns-ville, Matthew Smith

Barry G. Vermeer, Jennifer M. Water-worth, Gislason & Hunter, Minneapolis, MN, for Defendant-Appellee Fairview Health Services

Helen R. Brosnahan, Jeffrey A. Tim-merman, Dakota County Attorney’s Office, Hastings, MN, for Defendants-Appellees Dakota County, Angela Elwell

Christine Hinrichs, Kelly Ann Putney, Bassford & Remele, Minneapolis, MN, for Defendant-Appellee Joe Dalager

Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Harriet M. Liedtke appeals the district court’s1 order dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have carefully considered the matters Liedtke raises on appeal, and we find no basis to overturn the district court’s extensive and thoughtful opinion. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B. The judgment is affirmed. .

1

. The Honorable John R. Tunheim, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Hildy Bowbeer, Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         197,584
<SECURITIES>                                       250
<RECEIVABLES>                                   93,460
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               367,131
<PP&E>                                         210,778
<DEPRECIATION>                                  61,564
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 722,520
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          515,091
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                           974
<OTHER-SE>                                      87,465
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   722,520
<SALES>                                      1,209,485
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,209,485
<CGS>                                          746,368
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,700,082
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,787
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,183
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (487,528)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (487,528)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (487,528)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (5.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (5.16)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

   Schedule of Year-To-Date Principal and Interest Distributions
                           to
                  Certificateholders

                                                                    Ending
Class          Interest       Principal       Losses               Balance
<S>               <C>            <C>            <C>                 <C>
A1           2646335.47      17354507.92            0         522713954.88
A2           1973333.35                0            0            400000000
A3               963200                0            0            192000000
A4           2197866.64                0            0            416000000
A5            711647.76                0            0            126328000
A6            800533.36                0            0            152000000
A7           1622536.83       2565368.12            0         297904418.58
A8           3326211.94      12261131.02            0          700974726.2
OC                    0                0            0          44562609.18
P             358498.61                0            0                  800
R            1350752.91                0            0                    0


</TABLE>
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________________

No. 96-50556

____________________

JAMES E. LEBLANC,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

TRANSCONTINENTAL RIGGING 

AND LOADING CORPORATION 

AND JOSEPH BACH,

Defendants-Appellees.

__________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

( 95-CV-58 )

__________________________________________

November 29, 1996

Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff LeBlanc appeals the summary judgment in his personal

injury action. The district court held that as a matter of law,

LeBlanc could not prove defendants were the proximate cause of his

injuries. Pursuant to our de novo review, we AFFIRM for

essentially the reasons stated by the district court in its

comprehensive opinion.
AFFIRMED
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**ANDPRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

**(Subsections(a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, UnitedStates Code)**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on 10-Q/A ofAmerican Wagering, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter endedJuly 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), Icertify as of the date hereof, solely for the purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63,Section 1350 of the United States Code, to my knowledge, that:

 

(1)           theReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d), as applicable, of the 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 at the datesand for the periods indicated.

 

A signed original of this written statement, or otherdocument authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signaturethat appears in typed form within the electronic version of this writtenstatement, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Companyand furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

 

This Certification has not been, and shall not bedeemed, “filed” with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

 

 
| Date:  October 13, 2010 |   | /s/  Victor J. Salerno                                                        |
|------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                         |   | Victor  J. Salerno                                                            |
|                         |   | President,  Chief Executive Officer, Chief Operating Officer,                 |
|                         |   | Chairman  of the Board of Directors, and Interim Principal Accounting Officer |
|                         |   | (Principal  Executive and Financial Officer)                                  |

 

----
Exhibit 32.2
**CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT**
I, William J. Loughman, Chief Financial Officer of AirGate PCS, Inc. (the“Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:
(1) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year endedSeptember 30, 2004 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.78m or 78o(d)); and (2) to the best of my knowledge, the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.
Dated: December 14, 2004    /s/ William J. Loughman William J. Loughman Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial andAccounting Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          21,125
<SECURITIES>                                     2,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                   29,662
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,565
<INVENTORY>                                     10,043
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                66,750
<PP&E>                                          11,433
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,435
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  84,324
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,133
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           887
<OTHER-SE>                                      63,266
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    84,324
<SALES>                                         24,811
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                24,811
<CGS>                                           20,028
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   20,028
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,563
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    75
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  14
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (559)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (204)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (355)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (355)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.06)
        

</TABLE>