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

No. 14-73560

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 19, 2017

Jenny Tsai, Attorney, Green <& Tsai, Attorneys at Law, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner

Drew Brinkman, Sabatino F, Leo, 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: 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 **

Luis Tomas Mendez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions, for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. *Zehatye v. Gonzales,*453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Mendez established any changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application. *See 8*C.F.R. §§ 1208.4(a)(4), (5); *see also Toj-Culpatan v. Holder,*612 F.3d 1088, 1091-92 (9th Cir. 2010), We reject Mendez’s contention that the BIA erred in its analysis. Thus, we deny the petition for review as to Mendez’s asylum claim.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Mendez failed to establish past persecution or a clear probability 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.”). Thus, his withholding of removal claim fails.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 32.1

Written Statement of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer of the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority (the Authority), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, on the date hereof:



| | (a) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Authority for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (b) | information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Authority.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/    MITCHELL GROSSINGER
ETESSMitchell Grossinger EtessChief Executive Officer,Mohegan Tribal Gaming AuthorityMay 14, 2009


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
to the Authority and will be retained by the Authority and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6939 

To direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to continue to implement 

the Migrant Protection Protocols, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 10, 2024 

Mr. ROSENDALE (for himself, Mr. GOODEN of Texas, Mr. RESCHENTHALER, 

Ms. MALLIOTAKIS, Mr. HARRIS, Ms. BOEBERT, Mr. WALTZ, Mr. GOOD

of Virginia, Mr. BURLISON, Mr. BAIRD, Mr. TONY GONZALES of Texas, 

Mr. VAN DREW, Mr. BIGGS, Mr. PERRY, Mr. NORMAN, Mr. BALDERSON, 

Mr. GOSAR, Mr. FRY, Mr. CARTER of Georgia, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. 

ARRINGTON, Mr. LAMALFA, Mr. OGLES, Mr. YAKYM, Mr. WILSON of 

South Carolina, and Mr. COLLINS) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to continue 

to implement the Migrant Protection Protocols, and for 

other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Return Excessive Mi5 grants and Asylees to International Neighbors in Mexico 

6 Act of 2024’’ or the ‘‘REMAIN in Mexico Act of 2024’’. 

2 

•HR 6939 IH

1 SEC. 2. MIGRANT PROTECTION PROTOCOLS. 

2 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Sec3 retary of Homeland Security shall implement the Migrant 

4 Protection Protocols in accordance with the memorandum 

5 of Secretary of Homeland Security Nielsen entitled ‘‘Pol6 icy Guidance for Implementation of the Migrant Protec7 tion Protocols’’, dated January 25, 2019. 

Æ
# EUR-Lex - 32001R1239 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32001R1239

**Council Regulation (EC) No 1239/2001 of 19 June 2001 rectifying Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 on the common organisation of the markets in processed fruit and vegetable products **

*
Official Journal L 171 , 26/06/2001 P. 0001 - 0002 *

Council Regulation (EC) No 1239/2001

of 19 June 2001

rectifying Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 on the common organisation of the markets in processed fruit and vegetable products

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Articles 36 and 37 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament(1),

Whereas:

(1) Regulation (EC) No 2699/2000(2) inter alia amended Title I of Regulation (EC) No 2201/96(3) and accordingly adjusted, without changing the content, the provisions governing the aid scheme for the processing of dried figs and prunes derived from d'Ente plums. The scheme, which was previously included in Articles 2 to 6 of Regulation (EC) No 2201/96, is currently established by Article 6a of that Regulation. To take account of this new presentation, the text of Article 31 of the said Regulation, which identifies the expenditure to be funded by the Guarantee Section of the European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), should be amended.

(2) In the same Article 31 the reference to Regulation (EEC) No 729/70(4), which has been repealed, should be replaced by a reference to Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy(5),

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 shall be replaced by the following: "Article 31

Expenditure incurred under Article 2, Article 6a, Article 7, Article 9(4) and (5) and Article 10(3) shall be deemed to be intervention to stabilise the agricultural markets within the meaning of point (b) of Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy(6)."

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Luxembourg, 19 June 2001.

For the Council

The President

M. Winberg

(1) Opinion delivered on 16 May 2001 (not yet published in the Official Journal).

(2) OJ L 311, 12.12.2000, p. 9.

(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the markets in processed fruit and vegetable products (OJ L 297, 21.11.1996, p. 29). Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2699/2000 (OJ L 311, 12.12.2000, p. 9).

(4) Council Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 of 21 April 1970 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ L 94, 28.4.1970, p. 13). Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1287/95 (OJ L 125, 8.6.1995, p. 1).

(5) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 103.

(6) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 103.
Exhibit
32.1


CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO




SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Annual Report of Qingdao Footwear, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Tao
Wang, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:




(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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:
August 2, 2010





/s/
      Tao WangTao
      Wang, Principal Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Landec Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending February 27, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gregory S. Skinner, Vice President of Finance and Adminstration and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.





Date: April 8, 2011





/s/ Gregory S. SkinnerGregory S. SkinnerVice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Accounting Officer)





*
The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6491
RONNIE PHILLIPS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM E. GUNN, D irector of South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Caro lina, at Columbia. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-95-3231-3-6BC) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: August 5, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronnie Phillips, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief with out prejudice on his complaint alleging that a change in South Carolina law regarding parole eligibility violated the Ex Post Facto Clause and precluded his release on parole. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the district court's reasoning that Appellant's failure to exhaust state remedies precludes this action. Phillips v. Gunn , No. CA-95-3231-3-6BC (D.S.C. Mar. 15, 1996). See Todd v. Baskerville , 712 F.2d 70, 71-72 (4th Cir. 1983) (exhaustion required when prisoner challenges constitutionality of continued confinement and seeks release or shortening of duration of confinement, even if complaint is styled as a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) action). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed August 24, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D21-1327 Lower Tribunal No. 19-28545

________________ 

### Marlon Zamora, et al. , Appellants,
vs. 

### Citizens Property Insurance Corporation ,

Appellee. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Lourdes Simon, Judge. Shield Law Group of Florida, LLC, and Jamie Alvarez, Clement Dean, and Jesse Peterson (Davie), for appellants. Williams, Leininger & Cosby, PA, and Carri S. Leininger and Maureen Martinez (N. Palm Beach), for appellee. Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and LOGUE and LINDSEY, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed.
#### Amnah QAISER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION; Linda McMahon; Vanessa Piccioni, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-1586

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 24, 2017

Decided: June 7, 2017

Charity Chidinma Emeronye Swift, Stephen Christopher Swift, SWIFT *&*SWIFT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, PLLC, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney, Andrew S. Han, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Amnah Qaiser appeals the district court’s order denying her motion for leave to amend her complaint and granting Defendants summary judgment on Qaiser’s discrimination and hostile work environment harassment claims, brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2012). We have reviewed the record and have considered the parties’ arguments and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Quaiser v. SBA,*No. 1:15-cv-01627-JCC-MSN (E.D. Va. filed Mar. 18, 2016 *&*entered Mar. 21, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
Exhibit 32.2
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

          In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report of  CytoGenix,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 1O-Q for the period  ended  March 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Randy
Moseley, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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) 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 result of  operations of the
Company.


/s/Randy Moseley
----------------
Randy Moseley
Principal Financial Officer

May 20, 2009
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Marcos RAMIREZ-CANTU, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-50712 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed May 26, 2017

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, Mara Asya Blatt, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Bradford W. Bogan, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Maureen Scott Franco, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Marcos Ramirez-Cantu appeals following his guilty plea conviction and sentence for illegal reentry after deportation. He contends that the district court committed reversible plain error by imposing an enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) (2015) based on his pri- or Texas convictions for burglary of a habitation. Relying on *Mathis v. United States,*— U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 2243, 195 L.Ed.2d 604 (2016), as well as on Texas jurisprudence, Ramirez-Cantu argues that the Texas burglary statute is broader than the enumerated offense of burglary of a dwelling and that the Texas burglary statute is not divisible for purposes of applying the modified categorical approach. Ramirez-Cantu concedes, however, that the issue he raises on appeal is foreclosed by this court’s decision in *United States v. Uribe,*838 F.3d 667 (5th Cir. 2016), *cert. de*nied, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 1359, 197 L.Ed.2d 542 (2017).

The Government agrees that Ramirez-Cantu’s *Mathis-based*challenge is fore*829closed by *Uribe,*and it has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance. Summary affirmance is proper where, among other things, “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case.” *Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis,*406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).

In a *pre-Mathis*decision, we determined that the Texas burglary statute, Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 30.02 (2009), is a divisible statute that is amenable to application of the modified categorical approach. *See United States v. Conde-Castaneda,*753 F.3d 172, 176 (5th Cir. 2014). Ramirez-Cantu’s argument, in reliance on *Mathis,*that § 30.02(a) is not divisible and, thus, cannot support application of the modified categorical approach, was squarely rejected in *Uribe,*wherein we determined that the provisions of the Texas burglary statute set forth elements, rather than means, and that *Conde-Castaneda*had not been disturbed by *Mathis. See Uribe,*838 F.3d at 670-71.

In view of the foregoing, the motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
TMCI Electronics, Inc.
                                  Exhibit 11
                      Computation of Earnings Per Share




                                                      For the Quarter Ended
                                                            March 31,
                                                      1997              1996


EPS:

Net Income                                          $306,862          $31,219
                                                    ========          =======

Weighted average shares outstanding                3,515,829        2,314,171
                                                   =========        =========

EPS                                                    $0.09            $0.01
                                                   =========        =========


Primary & Fully Diluted EPS:

Net Income                                          $306,862          $31,219

Additional net income due to decrease in
interest expense and increase in interest
income, net of income taxes                          114,401             --
                                                   ---------         --------
Adjusted net income                                 $421,263          $31,219
                                                    ========         ========


Weighted average shares outstanding and
common stock equivalents                           3,515,829         2,314,171

Equivalent shares outstanding assuming
exercise of the options and warrants under
the modified treasury stock method                 1,796,834              --

Shares held in escrow in connection
with acquisition                                      80,503              --

Total weighted shares outstanding and              _________         _________
common stock equilalents                           5,393,166         2,314,171
                                                   =========         =========

Primary & Fully Diluted EPS                            $0.08             $0.01
                                                   =========         =========




<PAGE>
#### Warren RUSSELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden REYNOLDS, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-6694

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 12, 2017

Decided: June 21, 2017

Warren Russell, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Ap-pellee.

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Warren Russell seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and granting summary judgment for respondent on Russell’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. *7734(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” *Bowles v. Russell,*551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on March 25, 2016. The notice of appeal was filed, at the earliest, on April 27, 2016.* Because Russell failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*

*

 The district court found that Russell delivered his notice of appeal to prison officials for mailing on April 27, 2016. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); *Houston v. Lack,*487 U.S. 266, 276, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).
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 CONSTRUCTION, Appellant

V.

ALBERRAMAN L. CASTILLO, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-15-03266-B

ORDER

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
#### Peter Smith, Resp’t, v. John O’Brien, App’lt.

*Francis Larkin,*for resp’t; *John Gibney,*for app’lt.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Affirming 24 N. Y. State Rep., 708.