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

No. 15-72991

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*533Submitted July 11, 2017 *

Filed July 19, 2017

Benjamin Wiesinger, Pope *&*Associates, PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner

Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Victor Matthew Lawrence, I, Esquire, Assistant Director, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Conrado Valenzuela-Abril, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to remand based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to remand, and review de novo questions of law. *Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey,*538 F.3d 1057, 1061-62 (9th Cir. 2008). We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance. *Ahmed v. Holder,*569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion or violate due process in declining to remand based on ineffective assistance of counsel, where Valenzuela-Abril failed to comply with the procedural requirements of *Matter of Lozada,*19 I. & N. Dec. 647, 639 (BIA 1988). *See Correa-Rivera v. Holder,*706 F.3d 1128, 1131 (9th Cir. 2013) (“Appeals asserting ineffective assistance claims ... are effectively motions to reopen.”); *Al Ramahi v. Holder,*725 F.3d 1133, 1138-39 (9th Cir. 2013) (no error in failing to find ineffective assistance in the absence of evidentiary support required by *Matter of Lozada).*Contrary to Valenzuela-Abril’s contention, any ineffective assistance was not plain op the face of the record. *See Tamang v. Holder,*598 F.3d 1083, 1090-91 (9th Cir. 2010) (failure to satisfy *Lozada*was fatal to ineffective assistance of counsel claim where ineffectiveness was not plain on the face of the record).

The agency did not abuse its discretion or violate due process in declining to grant a further continuance, where Valenzuela-Abril had previously been granted a two-year continuance to gather and submit additional evidence. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; *Ahmed,*569 F.3d at 1012 (listing factors to consider when reviewing the denial of a continuance); *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.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**ARB Transient 55mph Cruise** **65mph Cruise**

'Brk energy Class 2b-5' '[kWh]' 0.97 0.00 0.00 'Brk energy Class 6-7' '[kWh]' 1.61 0.00 0.00 'Brk energy Class 7' '[kWh]' 3.35 0.00 0.00 'Brk energy Class 8' '[kWh]' 4.55 0.00 0.00
Trk energy Class 2b-5 at wheel''[kWh]' 2.47 5.56 8.76 Trk energy Class 6-7 at wheel' '[kWh]' 3.49 6.06 9.35 Trk energy Class 7 at wheel' '[kWh]' 6.33 7.83 11.64 Trk energy Class 8 at wheel' '[kWh]' 8.24 8.76 12.74
'Brk/Traction Energy Class 2b-5'[] 39% 0 0 'Brk/Traction Energy Class 6-7'[] 46% 0 0 'Brk/Traction Energy Class 7' [] 53% 0 0 'Brk/Traction Energy Class 8' [] 55% 0 0**Weighted (at wheel) Weighted (Pre-Trans)** 

0.255 0.424 0.884 1.203

1.021 1.317 **Transient** 2.170 **Proposed Weighting** 75% 2.726 **Miles** 2.84

25% 23% 32% 30% 41% 39% 44% 42%**55 mph 65 mph** 

9% 16% 4.58 5.41
#### IN RE: Dustin Roger CHANTEL; Elizabeth Darlene Chantel, Debtors. Dustin Roger Chantel; Elizabeth Darlene Chantel, Appellants, v. United States Trustee, Appellee.

No. 15-60055

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 11, 2017 *

Filed July 18, 2017

Dustin Roger Chantel, Pro Se

Elizabeth Darlene Chantel, Pro Se

Christopher Pattock, Trial Attorney, Office of the U.S. Trustee, Phoenix, *AZ,*John A. Postulka, Trial Attorney, DOJ—U.S.' Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Appellee

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Chapter 7 debtors Dustin Roger Chantel and Elizabeth Darlene Chantel appeal pro se from a judgment of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying the debtors a discharge. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We affirm.

In the opening brief, the debtors fail to address how the bankruptcy court erred in denying them a discharge. As a result, the debtors have waived their challenge to the bankruptcy court’s order. *See Smith v. Marsh,*194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[0]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”); *Greenwood v. FAA,*28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We review only issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party’s opening brief.”).

We reject as without merit the debtors’ contentions concerning their right to a jury trial and court-appointed counsel, and regarding the timeliness of the United States Trustee’s adversary proceeding complaint.

The debtors’ “motion to grant default judgment under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 55” (Docket Entry No. 20) is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SS.1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report, as amended, of Micromem TechnologiesInc. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the period ended October 31, 2003 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Joseph Fuda,Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: May 28, 2004

|   | /s/Joseph Fuda Joseph Fuda
  |
|--------|----------------------------------------|
##### 



EXHIBIT 10.8
 
  
    
    An annual retainer fee of $30,000. The
annual retainer fee is payable, at the directors election, in cash or shares of
Connetics common stock.
 
    
    An initial stock option grant to purchase 30,000 shares of Connetics common stock,
granted on the date on which the individual first becomes a director. The exercise price
for the option is equal to the fair market value of the common stock on the date of grant.
The option vests in four equal installments on the first, second, third and fourth
anniversaries of the date of grant.
 
    
    An annual stock option grant to purchase 15,000 shares of Connetics common stock in
each year the director is re-elected to the Board if, on the date of grant, the director
has served on the Board for at least six months. The exercise price for the option is
equal to the fair market value of Connetics common stock on the date of grant. The
option is exercisable in full on the first anniversary of the date of grant.
 
    
    A fee of $2,000 for each Board meeting attended in person, which will increase to
$2,500 effective January 1, 2006.
 
    
    A fee of $500 for each regularly scheduled Board meeting attended by telephone, which
will increase to $1,000 effective January 1, 2006.
 
    
    A fee of $1,000 for each Board committee meeting attended in person or $500 for each
Board committee meeting attended by telephone.
 
    
    An annual retainer of $15,000 for the chair of the Audit Committee, which is payable in
cash in quarterly installments.
 
    
    An annual retainer of $7,500 for the chair of the Compensation Committee and for the
chair of the Governance and Nominating Committee, which is payable in cash in quarterly
installments.
 
    
    Reimbursement of out-of pocket expenses incurred by the director in connection with
attending Board meetings.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003 
(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report of Nanoscience Technologies, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the Company) on Form 10-KSB/A for the year
ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, John T. Ruddy, hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350), that to my knowledge:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15(d) of the Securities and 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.

|August 8, 2008 |  | /s/John T. Ruddy                            
|-------------- |  | --------------------------------------------
|               |  | President, Chief Executive Officer,         
|               |  | Principal Executive Officer, Chief Financial
|               |  | Officer, Principal Financial and Accounting 
|               |  | Officer and Director                        



---
(LOGO) KPMG

Center Tower
650 Town Center Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626


Independent Accountants' Report

The Board of Directors
New Century Mortgage Corporation:


We have examined management's assertion about New Century Mortgage Corporation's
compliance  with the  minimum  servicing  standards  set  forth in the  Mortgage
Bankers Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage
Bankers  as of and for  the  years  ended  December  31,  1999  included  in the
accompanying  Management's Assertion on the Loan Servicing Portfolio Serviced by
New Century  Mortgage  Corporation.  Management is  responsible  for New Century
Mortgage  Corporation's  compliance with those minimum servicing standards.  Our
responsibility  is to express an opinion  on  management's  assertion  about the
Company's compliance based on our examination.

Our  examination  was  made in  accordance  with  standards  established  by the
American  Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,  accordingly,  included
examining,  on a test basis,  evidence about New Century Mortgage  Corporation's
compliance  with the  minimum  servicing  standards  and  performing  such other
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  We believe that our
examination  provides a reasonable  basis for our opinion.  Our examination does
not  provide  a  legal  determination  on  New  Century  Mortgage  Corporation's
compliance with the minimum servicing standards.

In our opinion, management's assertion that New Century Mortgage Corporation has
complied in all material  respects  with the  aforementioned  minimum  servicing
standards as of and for the year ended  December 31, 1999 is fairly  stated,  in
all material respects.


KPMG LLP

March 28, 2000


KPMG LLP. KPMG LLP, a U.S. limited liability partnership, is a member of KPMG
International, a Swiss association.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       4,536,962
<SECURITIES>                                 5,136,010
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,331,200
<ALLOWANCES>                                   161,500
<INVENTORY>                                    340,807
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,198,614
<PP&E>                                       4,161,159
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,356,019)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,075,865
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,722,935
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            86
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,308,543
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,075,865
<SALES>                                      2,627,145
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,627,145
<CGS>                                        2,391,454
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,391,454
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            16,024,717
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              44,301
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (15,379,595)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (15,379,595)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.81)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.81)
        

</TABLE>
Order entered May 13, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 18 - 01033 - CV HENRY SANCHEZ D/B/A H SANCHEZ CONSTRUCTI ON, Appellant V. ALBERRAMAN L. CASTIL LO, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC - 15 - 03266 - B



### O RDER Before the Court is appellee’s May 9, 2019 second motion for extension of time to file his brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the brief due by June 7, 2019

. /s/ KEN MOLBERG JUSTICE
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6779 

To end unemployment payments to jobless millionaires. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 14, 2023 

Mr. CURTIS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To end unemployment payments to jobless millionaires. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Ending Unemployment 

5 Payments to Jobless Millionaires Act of 2023’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ENDING UNEMPLOYMENT PAYMENTS TO JOBLESS 

7 MILLIONAIRES. 

8 (a) PROHIBITION.—Notwithstanding any other provi9 sion of law, no Federal funds may be used to make pay10 ments of unemployment compensation (including such 

11 compensation under the Federal-State Extended Com12 pensation Act of 1970) in a year to an individual whose 

2 

•HR 6779 IH

1 adjusted gross income is equal to or greater than 

2 $1,000,000. 

3 (b) COMPLIANCE.—Any application for unemploy4 ment compensation shall include a form or procedure for 

5 an individual applicant to certify that such individual is 

6 not prohibited from receiving unemployment compensation 

7 pursuant to subsection (a). 

8 (c) AUDITS.—The certifications required by sub9 section (b) shall be auditable by the Department of Labor 

10 or the Government Accountability Office. 

11 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The prohibition under sub12 section (a) shall apply to weeks of unemployment begin13 ning on or after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
#### Anna Fisher, as Administratrix of the Estate of Albert Fisher, Deceased, Appellant, *v.*New York Good Humor, Inc., Respondent.

Submitted June 7, 1943;

decided June 18, 1943.

*922
      *Joseph A. Minch*for motion.

No one opposed.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs, and ten dollars costs of motion.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 41 (Wednesday, March 2, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11800-11801]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04357]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration #17356 and #17357; IOWA Disaster Number IA-00110]


Presidential Declaration of a Major Disaster for Public 
Assistance Only for the State of Iowa

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major 
disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Iowa (FEMA-4642-
DR), dated 02/23/2022.
    Incident: Severe Storms, Straight-line Winds, and Tornadoes.
    Incident Period: 12/15/2021.

DATES: Issued on 02/23/2022.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 04/25/2022.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 11/23/2022.

[[Page 11801]]


ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to:
    U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement 
Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the President's major disaster declaration on 02/23/2022, Private Non-
Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental 
nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above 
or other locally announced locations.

    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:
Primary Counties: Appanoose, Audubon, Buena Vista, Calhoun, Cass, 
Cherokee, Davis, Emmet, Floyd, Franklin, Greene, Guthrie, Hamilton, 
Hancock, Howard, Humboldt, Mills, Mitchell, Palo Alto, Pocahontas, Sac, 
Van Buren, Webster, Worth, Wright.
    The Interest Rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Physical Damage:
  Non-Profit Organizations with Credit Available Elsewhere...      1.875
  Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere      1.875
For Economic Injury:
  Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere      1.875
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 17356 B 
and for economic injury is 17357 0.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

Barbara Carson,
Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2022-04357 Filed 3-1-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8026-03-P
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT - 99.1


                                  MOSSIMO, INC.

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Mossimo, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I Mossimo Giannulli,
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

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

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


/s/ Mossimo Giannulli
---------------------------------
Mossimo Giannulli
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
May 14, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 OF
CARIBINER INTERNATIONAL, INC. AS SET FORTH IN THIS FORM 10-Q 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-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                  DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                        10,769
<SECURITIES>                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                 124,428
<ALLOWANCES>                  900
<INVENTORY>                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              189,156
<PP&E>                        86,372
<DEPRECIATION>                3,631
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                696,607
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         124,740
<BONDS>                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   0
<COMMON>                      235
<OTHER-SE>                    174,535
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  696,607
<SALES>                       122,449
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              122,449
<CGS>                         85,009
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 34,993
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            2,922
<INCOME-PRETAX>               213
<INCOME-TAX>                  85
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           128
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               605
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  (477)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                 (0.02)
        


</TABLE>
James Albert POLLOCK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-2805

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 9, 2018]

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Claire Victoria Madill, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Anesha Worthy, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

In this case, appellant timely raised the issue of his competency before entering a nolo contendere plea. The trial court ordered appellant examined to determine competency. Appellant was found competent by the examiner. However, at the subsequent plea hearing, defense counsel noted that appellant "still had some issues." Without conducting a competency hearing or entering a written order on competency, the trial court accepted Appellant's plea, adjudicated him guilty, and imposed sentence. Appellant and the state agree that reversal is required, but disagree as to the proper remedy.

Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.210 requires a court to conduct a competency hearing "once it has reasonable *436grounds to believe that a criminal defendant is not competent to proceed." *Hawks v. State* , 226 So.3d 892, 893 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (citation omitted). Following such a hearing, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.212 requires a trial court to issue a written competency order. *Id.* at 894. The trial court here erred, as even after learning of the results of the competency evaluation, it was required to hold a hearing to independently determine competency. *Id.* (citing Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.210(b) ). We therefore reverse for the trial court to conduct a nunc pro tunc competency evaluation, if possible. *Id.* at 895. If a retroactive competency determination is impossible, the trial court should vacate the judgment and sentence and set the case for trial. *See**id.* ; *see also**Dortch v. State* , Nos. 4D16-2815 and Nos. 4D16-2816, 242 So.3d 431, 2018 WL 1617082, at *2 (Fla. 4th DCA April 4, 2018).

*Reversed and remanded.*

Levine, Conner and Forst, JJ., concur
#### Henry Fullerton, Respondent, *v.*Patrick Dalton, Appellant.

(Argued April 5, 1872;

decided April 9, 1872.)

*M. I. Townsend*for the appellant.

*G. H. Lee*for the respondent.

Agree to affirm. Ro opinion.