alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Fidadelfo Ceferino CALDERON-CARILLO, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-73490

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*734Submitted October 23, 2017 *

Filed October 27, 2017

Douglas Jalaie, Esquire, Attorney, The Law Office of Douglas Jalaie, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner

OIL, Jonathan Aaron Robbins, Esquire, Trial Attorney, 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: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Fidadelfo Ceferino Calderon-Carillo, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of an immigration judge’s (“D”) determination under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(a) that he did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture and thus is not entitled to relief from his reinstated removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the IJ’s factual findings, *Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch,*828 F.3d 829, 833 (9th Cir. 2016), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Calderon-Carillo failed to establish a reasonable possibility of future persecution in Guatemala on account of a protected ground. *See Zetino v. Holder,*622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An [applicant’s] desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground.”).

Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s conclusion that Calderon-Carillo failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of torture by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Guatemalan government. *See Andrade-Garcia,*828 F.3d at 836-37.

We do not consider the materials Calderon-Carillo references for the first time in his opening brief that are not part of the administrative record. *See Fisher v. INS,*79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (court’s review is limited to “the administrative record upon which the [removal] order is based”) (internal quotation and citation omitted).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

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



DEFERRAL AGREEMENT
  Annual deferred compensation credits:
    
    $200,000
    
    
    Vesting Date(s)
    
    Vesting AmountDuration of deferral agreement:
    
    5 yearsFirst
compensation credit:
    
    $200,000 (10/01/2004)
    
    
    09/30/2007
    

1/2 of current account balanceSecond compensation credit:
    
    $200,000 (10/01/2005)
    
    
    09/30/2008
    
    1/2 of current account balanceThird compensation credit:
    
    $200,000 (10/01/2006)
    
    
    09/30/2009
    
    Balance of accountFourth compensation credit:
    
    $200,000 (10/01/2007)Fifth and final compensation credit:
    
    $200,000 (10/01/2008)Total credits over deferral period:
    
    $1,000,000Expiration data:
    
    09/30/2009
   In consideration of this new agreement and in recognition of the new position to which
I have recently been selected, TVA agrees to transfer the balance of my current Long
Term Deferred Compensation Plan account to my Merit Incentive Supplemental Retirement
Income Plan (MISRIP) account and Iagree that all rights and obligations under the
deferral agreement, which I signed on August 13, 2001, are
hereby extinguished.
     û Vesting amount stated above to be paid to me in a
lump sumo Vesting amount stated above to be transferred to TVA
MISRIP account
  /s/
Karl W. Singer
Participant
    
    
    
    5/2/04
Date/s/
John E. Long, Jr.
Chief Officer
    
    
    
    5/7/04
Date
#### GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION, Appellant v. SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Appellee

2016-2135

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

June 19, 2017

Paul Ashley Ainsworth, Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox, PLLC, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by *629Byron Leroy Pickard, Lori A. Gordon, Michael Bradley Ray.

Jeffrey Bragalone, Bragalone Conroy PC, Dallas, TX, argued for appellee. Also represented by Justin Kimble, Daniel Fletcher Olejko, Terry Saad.

(Newman, Chen, and-Stoll, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Joseph D. Eddy, Deceased. Thomas Dickson, Individually and as Surviving Partner of the Firm of Dickson & Eddy, Appellant. Sally D. Eddy and Thomas Dickson, as Executor of Joseph D. Eddy, Deceased, et al., Respondents.

Argued February 25, 1943;

decided April 8, 1943.

*678
      *William Roberts*for appellant.

*Henry Alan Johnston*and *Edmund M. McCarthy*for respondents.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ.
#### COFFIELD VS. HARRIS.

Appeal from Milam county.

*Bailment.*— A bailee who takes animals to pasture, may by special contract, limit his liabilities, and any special contract limiting his liabilities, not contrary to public policy or statute, will be respected and enforced by the courts. If he makes a special contract his responsibility will be measured and determined by the terms of the contract.

Opinion by

Hurt, J.
#### Juan ESQUIVEL-QUINTANA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-3101

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Filed August 29, 2017

Michael Hugh Carlin, Law Office, Ann Arbor, MI, for Petitioner

Yedidya Cohen, Patrick James Glen, Anthony Cardozo Payne, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Sejal Zota, Boston, MA, for Amici Curiae National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, Asista Immigration Assistance, Immigrant Legal Resource Center, Michigan Immigrant Rights

Brian J. Murray, Charles G. Roth, Jones Day, Chicago, IL, Rajeev Muttreja, Jones Day, New York, NY, for Amicus Curiae National Immigrant Justice Center

Before: BOGGS, SUTTON, and COOK, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

BOGGS, Circuit Judge.

In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in *Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions,*— U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 1562, 1573, 198 L.Ed.2d 22 (2017), we hereby VACATE the Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dated January 9, 2015, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Exhibit 31(ii)
                                --------------


                                CERTIFICATIONS

I, Steve Bailey, certify that:


      1.    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form
            10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this
            report on Form 10-K of CHL Mortgage Pass-Through Trust 2006-17
            (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

      2.    Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as
            a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and
            other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the
            period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act
            periodic reports;

      4.    I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
            servicer(s) and based on my knowledge and the compliance review(s)
            conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement(s)
            required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and
            except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the
            servicer(s) have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing
            agreement(s) in all material respects; and

      5.    All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing
            criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation
            reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for
            asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in
            accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules
            13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report,
            except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material
            instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been
            disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

      In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
      information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: The
      Bank of New York, as Trustee.

   Date: March 26, 2007


      /s/ Steve Bailey
      ------------------------
      Steve Bailey
      Senior Managing Director, Loan Administration
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-30137 Summary Calendar

__________________ ANTONINO F. ANZALONE, Plaintiff-Appellant, and RON S. MACALUSO of Seale, Macaluso,

Daigle & Ross, Intervenor-Plaintiff, versus ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 93-CV-2248

- - - - - - - - - - November 28, 1995 Before JOHNSON, JOLLY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Antonino F. Anzalone appeals the jury's verdict in favor of defendant Allstate Insurance Company regarding suit brought pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213. Anzalone maintains that the district court made erroneous evidentiary rulings and that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's verdict. Because review of the briefs and the record reveals no reversible error, we AFFIRM.
AFFIRMED.
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Chapa Products Corp., as Assignee of Maribel Minaya, Appellant, <br><br>against<br><br>Progressive Insurance Company, Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant.McCormack &amp; Mattei, P.C. for respondent, (no brief filed).</p><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Jodi Orlow, J.), entered June 23, 2014. The order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>ORDERED that the order is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the action is premature because plaintiff had failed to provide requested verification.</p><p>For the reasons stated in <i>Pierre Jean Jacques Renelique, as Assignee of Nathalia Brown v American Tr. Ins. Co.</i> (___ Misc 3d ____, 2017 NY Slip Op ______ [appeal No. 2014-1538 Q C], decided herewith), the order is reversed and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.</p><p>PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.</p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: August 11, 2017<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>
#### Luis A. Munoz ELIZARRARAZ Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III,1 Attorney General of the United States Respondent

No. 16-1679

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: May 30, 2017

Filed: June 2, 2017

Marisa-Andrea Moore, Law Office of Marisa-andrea Moore, Grand Island, NE, for Petitioner,

Lynda Do, Karen Yolanda Drummond, Carl H. McIntyre, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

1

. Jefferson B. Sessions, III has been appointed to serve as Attorney General of the United States, and is substituted as respondent pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c).

PER CURIAM.

Mexican citizen Luis A. Munoz Elizar-raraz petitions for i-eview of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals upholding an immigration judge’s decision to deny his application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture.2 Having jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, this court, after careful consideration, concludes that substantial evidence supports the denial of relief. The petition is denied. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

2

. Munoz Elizarraraz does not challenge the denial of asylum.
#### MIMEDX GROUP, INC., Appellant v. MUSCULOSKELETAL TRANSPLANT FOUNDATION, Appellee

2017-1043

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

September 14, 2017

*700Patrick J. Flinn, Alston & Bird LLP, At.lanta., GA, argued for appellant. Also represented by Keith E. Broyles, Pamela Councill, Matthew Wolff Howell; Deepro Mukerjeb, New York, NY.

Michael Anthony Nicodema, Greenberg Traurig LLP, Florham Park, NJ, argued for appellee. Also represented by John K. Kim.

(Dyk, Linn, and Hughes, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
EXHIBIT
23.2





GEORGE
STEWART, CPA


2301
SOUTH JACKSON STREET, SUITE 101-G


SEATTLE,
WASHINGTON 98144


(206)
328-8554  FAX(206) 328-0383





To Whom
It May Concern:





The firm
of George Stewart, Certified Public Accountant consents to the inclusion of the
Financial Statements of Wilson Creek Mining Corp. as of November 30, 2008 and
2007, in any filings that are necessary now or in the near future with the U. S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.




Very
Truly Yours,




/S/
George Stewart





George
Stewart, CPA





February
13, 2009
January 18,2013 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

SHELBYVILLE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT 

3529 NORTH, 1 00 WEST 

SHELBYVILLE, INDIANA 46176 

West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140 

Washington, DC 20590 

To Whom It May Concern: 

(317) 392-1284 

DARRELL SHRADER 

President 

SHERRY SHRADER 

Secretary 

Shelbyville Aviation, Inc. would like to petition the Federal Aviation Administration for exemption from 

14 CFR Part 120 

Shelbyville Aviation requests to allow just one of the two existing FAA approved Drug and Alcohol 

programs to cover both the part. 13 5 and part 91.14 7 operations for a small family company with only two 

employees. Currently, Shelbyville Aviation maintains Anti Drug and Alcohol programs for two separate 

operations 

Part 135 On-Demand Air Charter * 

* Part 91.14 7 Passenger Carrying Scenic Flight Tour Operations 

At this time we have our pilot and our maintenance director enrolled in each program. The relief we seek is 

acceptance of combining the drug and alcohol program for the 91.147 operation with the Part 135 program 

in order to avoid redundant effort and expense. Having to maintain two separate programs is costly to us as 

a small business, both in testing and monthly maintenance costs through our consortium. This would also 

relieve us from having a DER for bo!h programs. We believe that having just one program for the pilot 

and our maintenance director will streamline operations for our Anti-drug and Alcohol program manager 

making the management and imple11;1e~tation more efficient. 

Reducing our cost helps us maintain the lowest possible rates for our services, as well as minimizes the 

effort that the FAA must expend managing our drug and alcohol program. Both are in the public interest. 

Public safety shall not be compromised; the program will not change as all safety sensitive employees will 

continue to be enrolled and subject to the same program rules as they currently are. Benefits to the public 

will be to eliminate redundancy, the~efore decreasing costs to the taxpayer. 

Our small family company has been)~ operation more than twenty-five years with no accidents or 

drug/alcohol issues. 

J• 

If you require further details, pleaseLc~:mtact me either by phone or email. 

P.!. 

Sincerely, 

A~4~ ,,,- ' ... 

-· ' ! ~ • , .. 

Sherry G. Shrader 

Phone: 317-392-1284 

Email: sgshrader@comcast.net 

'l 

) . 

Instruction • Rental • Charter
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edwin PARKER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-10171

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 13, 2017* San Francisco, California

Filed July 17, 2017

Gayle L. Helart, Attorney, Robert Ian Brooks, USPX—Office of the US Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Thomas M. Hoidal, Esquire, Law Office of Thomas M. Hoidal, P.L.C., Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant

*691Before: BEA and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and ROB RENO,** District Judge.

*

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

**

 The Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Defendant-Appellant Edwin Parker appeals his conviction for armed bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting Parker’s request for an adverse inference instruction. The district court identified and properly applied the controlling legal test, balancing “ ‘the quality of the Government’s conduct’ against ‘the degree of prejudice to the accused’ ” to determine whether to give the instruction. *United States v. Sivilla,*714 F.3d 1168, 1173 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting *United States v. Loud Hawk,*628 F.2d 1139, 1152 (9th Cir. 1979)).

> In evaluating the quality of the government’s conduct: “the court should inquire whether the evidence was lost or destroyed while in its custody, whether the Government acted in disregard for the interests of the accused, whether it was negligent in failing to adhere to established and reasonable standards of care for police and prosecutorial functions, and, if the acts were deliberate, whether they were taken in good faith or with reasonable justification.... It is relevant also to inquire whether the government attorneys prosecuting the case have participated in the events leading to loss or destruction of the evidence, for prosecutorial action may bear upon existence of a motive to harm the accused.”

*Id.*(quoting *Loud Hawk,*628 F.2d at 1152). Here, there was no evidence presented that law enforcement officials, either local or federal, took custody of the lost “Identicards,” that they acted in disregard of Parker’s interests, that the loss of the Identicards was deliberate or due to their negligence, or that the prosecuting attorneys were involved. Further, given the overwhelming evidence of his guilt adduced by the Government apart from the eyewitness testimony connected to the allegedly lost Identicards, Parker cannot show prejudice from the denial of the instruction. Video evidence of the robbery showed the robber’s clothing, a duffle bag he carried, and his replica weapon, all of which were found in a warrant search of the getaway vehicle after he was stopped shortly after the robbery. The search also produced the marked bills and a tracker put into his duffle bag by a bank teller.

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         158,898
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  278,853
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               449,084
<PP&E>                                         225,422
<DEPRECIATION>                                  44,029
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 630,559
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          644,727
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,396
<OTHER-SE>                                    (24,564)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   630,559
<SALES>                                        305,628
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               305,628
<CGS>                                           42,874
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,544,708
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,267,584
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              17,997
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,567,535)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,567,535)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,567,535)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.27)


</TABLE>
#### Homer Mandeville, Respondent, *v.*Henry A. Guernsey, Appellant.

(Argued April 25, 1872;

decided November 12, 1872.)

*George B. Bradley*for the appellant.

*John W. Dininy*for the respondent.

For affirmance—Church, Ch. J.

Allen, Peckham and Andrews, JJ., concur.

For reversal—Grover, Folger and Rapallo, JJ.

Judgment affirmed. Ho opinion.