alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Jose Jesus MAGANA-MONTES, AKA Jose Jesus Magana-Montez, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 14-73844

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 ***

Filed October 3, 2017

James Todd Bennett, El Cerrito, CA, for Petitioner

Stratton Christopher Strand, Trial Attorney, OIL, 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: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Jesus Magana-Montes, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. *Cabantac v. Holder,*736 F.3d 787, 792 (9th Cir. 2013). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Magana-Montes is removable for an offense related to a controlled substance, where the abstract of judgment read in conjunction with the complaint shows his conviction under California Health and Safety Code § 11351 involved heroin. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) (an alien who has been convicted of a violation of any law of a state, the United States, or a foreign country relating to a controlled substance is removable); *Cabantac,*736 F.3d at 793-94 (“[Wjhere, as here, the abstract of judgment ... specifies that a defendant pleaded guilty to a particular count of the criminal complaint or indictment, we can consider the facts alleged in that count.”). Accordingly, the agency did not violate due process in determining Magana-Montes is removable. *See Padilla-Martinez v. Holder,*770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (“To prevail on a due-process claim, a petitioner must demonstrate both a violation of rights and prejudice.”).

Because the removability determination under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)© is dispos-itive, we need not -reach Magana-Montes’ contentions regarding removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Magana-Montes’ unexhausted contention that the *506abstract of judgment cannot be linked to the complaint because they describe two different crimes. *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.”).

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.'
Ryan Montgomery’s Petition for Exemption 

1. Operator’s name and address;

Ryan Montgomery

9933 Panther Ct

Aumsville, OR 97325

Cell: 503-576-1530

2. The specific applicable regulations from which relief is required (CFRs);

3. How the operator will maintain an equivalent level of safety or no adverse impact to safety;

I will ensure the work I do will be safe, ensuring that I check any mechanical/maintenance found 

in the owner’s manual of the drone. (I don’t have specific until I purchase one) I will only be flying when 

the weather is nice to not have to deal with wind or rain. People will not be present, and if they are I 

would have a landing area with signs to ensure people around me know there is a flying drone in 

progress and to stand back a given amount of feet near the flying zone. 

I have tried to contact other people doing this kind of work in other states to get more 

knowledge about this industry but so far no luck but will continue to try and seek more answers.

4. How granting the exemption would be in the public interest;

I currently own a small sign company and deal with a wide range of current people who could 

use aerial photography in their daily work. As I am unsure entirely of what my capabilities of a UAV 

could do, my hope that I can offer aerial photography to my real estate friends and people I have met 

throughout my 5 years making signs that it will help in future real estate sales with a new look on a 

home’s pictures from the sky in high definition. 

5. The proposed operations; and,

My proposed operation is to start up a small aerial photography business dealing specifically 

with the real estate market to list future houses for sale, in extension to that could turn into real estate 

land for sale and business wanting to display their building/office in a nice visually appealing 

photograph. As a 24 year old entrepreneur I hope I can continue my success by adding this level of work 

into my current sign business of 5 years and grow aerial photography into a successful venture for me 

and my families future. I am driven individual and although I do not know how to operate an aerial 

drone nor have all the answer on how to safely fly one (yet) I will figure out and will always put myself 

and others in a safe position while it’s aerial. 

6. The make and model of the aircraft for proposed operations (aircraft manuals are not necessary).

I am looking at a Phantom 3 Professional drone that has a range of 400’ and the work I will be 

doing I don’t see a need/desire to have to go above that distance. 

Ready to submit your petition?

Note: Proprietary/Confidential documents should be clearly marked and emailed to

333exemptions@faa.gov. Be sure to include your comment tracking number (received upon
successful submission to regulations.gov) when emailing these documents. Do not submit them

to regulations.gov.
ex10.1

 

 Exhibit 10.1
 

 Regen BioPharma Inc.
 A wholly owned subsidiary of Bio-Matrix Scientific Group Inc.
 May 18, 2012
  
 Wei-Ping Min, MD, PhD
 Professor, Department of Surgery 
 University of Western Ontario
 339 Windermere Road
 LHSC-UC, C9-136 
 London, Ontario
 N6A 5A5
 Canada
 

 Dear Dr. Wei-Ping Min:
 

 This letter is a follow up to our previous discussion about the Scientific Advisory Board for Regen BioPharma Inc. (a wholly owned subsidiary of Bio-Matrix Scientific Group Inc.).  The function of the Scientific Advisory Board is to review research directions that Regen BioPharma Inc. may undertake, determining those projects which may lead to future developments / advancements in the field of stem cell therapy.  Other areas may be pursued as well, with advice from this advisory board.
 

 You will receive 200,000 shares of Bio-Matrix Common stock as consideration for participating in telephonic calls / conference calls and serving on Regen BioPharma Inc.’s Scientific Advisory Board.  The frequency and timing of such calls will be established on a mutually agreeable basis.
 

 It is anticipated that members of the Scientific Advisory Board will potentially serve as primary research consultants to the Company as such projects are undertaken.  Compensation for such projects will be either at a rate of $500 per hour or negotiated separately on a case-by-case basis between the Company and the researcher.
 

 Thank you for your consideration,
 

 /s/ David R. Koos
 Chairman & CEO 
 

 P.S.: Please sign the bottom of this letter in your acceptance and fax back to me at 619.330.2328.  Also, please email me a copy of your curriculum vitae in word format.  Any usage of your name in any press releases will be submitted to you for review and comment before being released to the public.
 

 

 /s/Wei Ping Min
 Wei-Ping Min, MD, PhD
 (date: May 26, 2012)
#### Jorge M. RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 13-72761

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted October 6, 2017 * Pasadena, California

Filed October 17, 2017

Zulu Ali, Law Office of Zulu AH, Riverside, CA, for Petitioner

Matthew B, George, OIL, 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

*631Before: KLEINFELD, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Jorge Ramirez petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeal’s (BIA) order dismissing his appeal of an immigration judge’s denial of his application for protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). “Due process challenges to immigration proceedings are reviewed *de novo,” Zetino v. Holder,*622 F.3d 1007, 1011 (9th Cir. 2010). “We review the factual findings underlying the BIA’s denial of CAT relief for substantial evidence.” *Vink Tan Nguyen v. Holder,*763 F.3d 1022, 1029 (9th Cir. 2014).

1. To prevail on a due process claim, Ramirez must demonstrate prejudice. *Sanchez-Cruz v. INS,*255 F.3d 775, 779 (9th Cir. 2001). Ramirez has not argued, however, that he suffered any prejudice from the BIA’s refusal to grant an extension of his briefing deadline.

2. The BIA adopted the immigration judge’s finding that Ramirez failed to establish a reasonable possibility of future torture by the Guatemalan government, or by private actors with the government’s acquiescence. We conclude that substantial evidence supports that determination.

PETITION DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Felicia JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-35921

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 22, 2017 *

Filed May 24, 2017

Merrill Schneider, Attorney, Schneider Kerr & Robichaux, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Thomas M. Elsberry, Esquire, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, SSA — Social Security Administration, Seattle, WA, Janice Elaine Hebert, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-USAO, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: D.W. NELSON, TROTT, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Felicia Johnson appeals the district court’s decision affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we review de novo. *Ghanim v. Colvin,*763 F.3d 1154, 1159 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm the district court’s judgment.

The administrative law judge (“ALJ”) did not err in according “little weight” to the contradicted opinion of Lucí Carstens, Ph.D., an examining psychologist. The ALJ provided a specific and legitimate reason, supported by substantial evidence, for discounting Dr. Carstens’s opinion by explaining that Johnson did not fully disclose her drug and alcohol use to Dr. Car-stens, and in particular did not mention a relapse in 2009. *See Garrison v. Colvin,*759 F.3d 995, 1012 (9th Cir. 2014). Any error in the other two reasons provided by the ALJ was harmless. *See Molina v. Astrue,*674 F.3d 1104, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk December 21, 2009

p1214 

# Order

December 21, 2009

139641

TORIANO JACOE TISDALE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 139641 COA: 285267 Wayne CC: 07-707476-NM LAURA KATHLEEN SUTTON, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 30, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department **578 CAF 11-02546**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, AND LINDLEY, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF DAMIEN W. AND ANGELA O.
--------------------------------------------- ORLEANS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, ORDER PETITIONER-RESPONDENT; KENNETH O., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
LEAH K. BOURNE, ROCHESTER, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. JAMES D. BELL, BROCKPORT, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT. HARRIET L. ZUNNO, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN, HILTON. Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Orleans County (James P. Punch, J.), entered December 7, 2011 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10. The order, inter alia, determined that respondent had neglected the subject children. It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Entered: June 7, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
**Exhibit        21.1**

**SUBSIDIARIES        OF THE COMPANY**

|                                                                | State                    of                                            |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Subsidiary                                                          | Incorporation                                                          |
|                                                                |                                                                   |
| Clayborn                    Contracting Group, Inc.                 | California                                                             |
| Heinz                    Corporation                                | Missouri                                                               |
| Invisinet,                    Inc.                                  | Delaware                                                               |
| New                    England Communication Systems, Inc.          | Connecticut                                                            |
| Quality                    Communications & Alarm Company, Inc. | New                    Jersey                                          |
| Southeastern                    Communication Service, Inc.         | Florida                                                                |
| Voacolo                    Electric, Inc.                           | New                    Jersey                                          |
| Walker                    Comm, Inc.                                | California                                                             |
|                                                                |                                                                   |
| Taian                    AGS Pipeline Construction Co. Ltd.         | Shandong                    Province                                   |
| (60%                    ownership interest)                         | People’s                    Republic of                    China |
Exhibit 32.1
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. section1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Fona, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael Friess,
Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section1350, 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),
as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



BY(Signature)                         /s/ Michael Friess
(Name and Title)                      Michael Friess, Chairman of the Board,
                                      President and Chief Executive Officer

(Date)                                November 12, 2010







                                       15
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Ultimate Health Products, Inc., as Assignee of Samuel Chaston, Appellant, <br><br>against<br><br>American Transit Ins. Co., Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Barry A. Schwartz, J.), entered May 8, 2013. The order denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.</p><p>For the reasons stated in <i>Ultimate Health Prods., Inc. as Assignee of Tamezan Osmali v American Tr. Ins. Co.</i> (___ Misc 3d ___, 2016 NY Slip Op ___ [appeal No. 2013-1479 Q C], decided herewith), the order is affirmed.</p><p>Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Elliot, JJ., concur.</p><br>Decision Date: March 15, 2016<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6681 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6681

 To amend the Clean Air Act to include fuel for ocean-going vessels as 
additional renewable fuel for which credits may be generated under the 
                        renewable fuel program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 7, 2023

 Mrs. Miller-Meeks (for herself, Mr. Garamendi, Ms. Budzinski, and Mr. 
   Gimenez) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Clean Air Act to include fuel for ocean-going vessels as 
additional renewable fuel for which credits may be generated under the 
                        renewable fuel program.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Renewable Fuel for Ocean-Going 
Vessels Act''.

SEC. 2. RENEWABLE FUEL FOR OCEAN-GOING VESSELS.

    (a) Definitions.--Section 211(o)(1)(A) of the Clean Air Act (42 
U.S.C. 7545(o)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ``fossil fuel present in 
home heating oil or jet fuel'' and inserting ``fossil fuel present in 
home heating oil, fuel for ocean-going vessels, or jet fuel''.
    (b) Applicability.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply beginning with respect to the first calendar year beginning after 
the date of enactment of this Act.
    (c) Regulations.--Not later than 365 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency shall promulgate such regulations as may be necessary 
to implement the amendment made by subsection (a).
    (d) Report to Congress.--Not later than 365 days after the date of 
promulgating the final regulations required under subsection (c), the 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall submit a 
report to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of 
Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of 
the Senate on the implementation of the amendment made by this Act and 
the regulations promulgated thereunder.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 31(b)

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, George A. Troutman, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this
quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Pinnacle Data Systems, Inc.;

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 officers 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; and

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 (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report 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 officers 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 the 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 data; 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: August 11, 2006



|                       
|-----------------------
|                       
|/s/ George A. Troutman 
|Chief Financial Officer