alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Dean Martin KIDDER, II, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-55595

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2017 *

Filed March 21, 2017

Dean Martin Kidder, II, Pro Se

Harold G. Becks, Esquire, Attorney, Douglas L. Day, Esquire, Harold G. Becks & Associates, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, 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 **

Dean Martin Kidder, II, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Balvage v. Ryderwood Improvement & Serv. Ass’n, Inc.,*642 F.3d 765, 775 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court properly entered a stipulated judgment in favor of defendants because Kidder failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the deputy did not have reasonable suspicion to execute the traffic stop or probable cause to conduct the automobile search. *See United States v. Willis,*431 F.3d 709, 714-16 (9th Cir. 2005) (no Fourth Amendment violation where officer has reasonable suspicion that a traffic violation occurred); *United States v. Pinela-Hernandez,*262 F.3d 974, 977-78 (9th Cir. 2001) (police may conduct a warrant-less search of a vehicle if they have probable cause to believe that it contains contraband).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended August 31, 2011 of Ruby Creek Resources, Inc (the “Company”) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





MYRON LANDINMyron Landin, Chief  Financial OfficerDecember 14, 2011
#### Dwight FORSYTHE, AKA Dwight Richard Forsythe, AKA Clifton Lamar Abston, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, United States Attorney General, Respondent.

14-4750

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

December 1, 2017

Appearing for Appellant: David Meir Zionts, Covington and Burling, LLP, Washington, D.C., amicus curiae in support of Petitioner Dwight Forsythe

Appearing for Appellee; Sabatino F. Leo, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice (Sheri R. Glaser, on the brief), for Jefferson B. Sessions III, U.S. Attorney General, Washington, D.C. Benjamin C. Mizer, Anthony P. Nicastro, Office of the Attorney General, Civil Division, Washington, D.C, (on the brief)

Present: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, DEBRA A. LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges. GEOFFREY W. CRAWFORD,1 District Judge.

1

. Judge Geoffrey W. Crawford, United States District Court for the District of Vermont, sitting by designation.

*58SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Dwight Forsythe, a native and citizen of Jamaica, seeks review of the December 10, 2014 order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the immigration judge’s denial of Forsythe’s application for withholding of removal on the basis of asylum and the Convention Against Torture. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and specification of issues for review.

Forsythe was removed from the United States on January 26, 2017 and has not been in touch with this Court since that date. His appointed amicus curiae counsel was unable to contact him prior to argument, despite this Court’s order that the government provide any additional contact information for Forsythe. We note that removal alone does not inevitably moot a petition for review, so long as the petitioner maintains his interest in proceeding and can demonstrate the existence of a “collateral consequence” to the denial of the underlying petition that would “establish a live case or controversy.” *Swaby v. Ashcroft,*357 F.3d 156, 159-61 (2d Cir. 2004). Forsythe would be subject to a twenty-year bar on reentry under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(A)(ii), which establishes a cognizable collateral consequence for the purposes of jurisdiction.

We prudentially decline to exercise our jurisdiction in this ease, however, because of our concern that we may no longer be in a position to offer an effective remedy “in light of the myriad of uncertainties in this case.” *Ali v. Cangemi,*419 F.3d 722, 724 (8th Cir. 2005).

Accordingly, the petition for review is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
#### Hesman TALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARYLAND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES ADMINISTRATION; Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1066

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 25, 2017

Decided: May 30, 2017

Hesman Tall, Appellant Pro Se. Rebecca Jean Coleman, William G. Dunlap, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*842PER CURIAM:

Hesman Tall appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action for lack of jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). “We review a district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) de novo,” *Demetres v. E. W. Const., Inc.,*776 F.3d 271, 272 (4th Cir. 2015), and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Tall v. Md. Developmental Disabilities Admin.,*No. 1:15-cv-03811-ELH, 2016 WL 7491621 (D. Md. filed on Dec. 29, 2016 & entered Dec. 30, 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 23.1


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements:


|    |                                                                                                                        
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(1) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-218459) pertaining to the Triangle Capital Corporation Omnibus Incentive Plan,

|    |                                                                                                                                                     
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(2) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-141827) pertaining to the Triangle Capital Corporation Amended and Restated 2007 Equity Incentive Plan, and

|    |                                                                                                                            
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(3) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.333-185892), pertaining to the Triangle Capital Corporation 2007 Equity Incentive Plan;

of our reports dated February 28, 2018 , with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Triangle Capital Corporation and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Triangle Capital Corporation included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2017 .





/s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Raleigh, North Carolina


February 28, 2018
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Alejandro MARTINEZ, Jr., Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11196 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 18, 2017

*812James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Alejandro Martinez, Jr., Pro Se

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Alejandro Martinez, Jr., has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Martinez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

MARY DOE, a human embryo "born" 

in the United States (and

subsequently frozen in which state

of cryopreservaton her life is

presently suspended) individually

and on behalf of all other frozen

human embryos similarly situated;

THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE

ADVANCEMENT OF PREBORN CHILDREN,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

DONNA E. SHALALA, in her official  No. 01-1298

capacity as Secretary of Health and

Human Services; U.S.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN

SERVICES; HAROLD VARMUS, in his

official capacity as Director of the

National Institutes of Health;

NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH,

Defendants-Appellees.

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR

EMBRYONIC LAW,

Amicus Curiae. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.

Peter J. Messitte, District Judge.

(CA-99-2428-PJM)

Submitted: January 23, 2002

Decided: February 7, 2002
Before WIDENER and KING, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

R. Martin Palmer, Jr., MARTIN PALMER & ASSOCIATES,

Hagerstown, Maryland, for Appellants. Robert D. McCallum, Jr.,

Assistant Attorney General, Thomas M. DiBiagio, United States

Attorney, Larry D. Adams, Assistant United States Attorney, Mark B.

Stern, Thomas M. Bondy, Appellate Staff, Civil Division, UNITED

STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for

Appellees. Clifford J. Stevens, NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR

EMBRYONIC LAW, Virginia Dale, Colorado, for Amicus Curiae.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Mary Doe, a human embryo "born" in the United States (and subsequently frozen in which state of cryopreservation her life is presently suspended), individually and on behalf of all other frozen

human embryos similarly situated, and the National Association for

the Advancement of Preborn Children (collectively "Appellants")

appeal the district court’s order administratively closing their civil

lawsuit challenging the Clinton Administration’s policies regarding

federal funding of human stem cell research. We dismiss the appeal

for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. 

2 DOE v. SHALALA
This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28

U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders,

28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial

Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is

neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral

order. It merely removes the case from the district court’s active

docket until the issue of federal funding for stem cell research is settled by the Bush Administration. 

We therefore dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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.

DISMISSED

DOE v. SHALALA 3
#### Donetta BYRD, also known as Donetta Michelle Byrd-Sanders, Appellant v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Appellee

No. 17-7084

September Term, 2017

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Filed On: September 22, 2017

Donetta Byrd, Pro Se

BEFORE: Kavanaugh and Pillard, Circuit Judges, and Ginsburg, Senior Circuit Judge

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed on January 31, 2017, be affirmed, but the order is hereby modified to reflect that the dismissal is without prejudice. The district court properly dismissed appellant’s complaint for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), which requires “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” in order to “give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C. Cir. 2004). The dismissal without prejudice allows appellant to file a new complaint that complies with Rule 8(a).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 802

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of documentation and coastwise trade endorsement for the vessel ROYAL

AFFAIRE.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 15, 1995

Mr. HOLLINGS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a

certificate of documentation and coastwise trade endorsement for the vessel ROYAL AFFAIRE.

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

3 That notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine

4 Act, 1920 (46 U.S.C. App. 883), the Act of June 19, 1886

5 (46 U.S.C. App. 289), and sections 12106, 12107, and

6 12108 of title 46, United States Code, the Secretary of

7 Transportation may issue a certificate of documentation
2

S 802 IS

1 with a coastwise endorsement for the vessel ROYAL

2 AFFAIRE, United States official number 649292.

Æ
Per the policies and procedures required by the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002, Title I, Part E, 

Section 183, responses to this data collection will be used only for statistical purposes. The reports 

prepared for this study will summarize findings across the sample and will not associate responses with a 

specific district or individual. Any willful disclosure of such information for nonstatistical purposes, 

except as required by law, is a class E felony.

The On-Time Graduation Study 

School Survey Consent Form

PURPOSE

The On-Time Graduation Study is being conducted by the Midwest Regional Educational Laboratory at 

American Institutes for Research (AIR). It is funded by the U.S. Department of Education, Institute of 

Education Sciences and will run from January 2014 through the spring of 2016. The purpose of this 

survey is to ask school administrators about their school data culture and how they use student data to 

identify and intervene with students who may be at-risk for dropping out of high school. 

PROCEDURES

Participation includes an online survey that will take approximately 60 minutes to complete. You can start 

or stop the survey at any point and your answers will be saved on the online system. 

RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS 

There are no known risks for participation. Your participation in this study is voluntary. You will not be 

penalized in any way for not participating. If you decide to participate, you may discontinue at any time 

without penalty.

CONFIDENTIALITY

You are not required to answer questions that you do not want to answer. Responses will be used only for 

research purposes and will be kept strictly confidential. Each participant is assigned a study identification 

number in place of their names. The reports prepared for this study will summarize findings and will not 

associate responses with a specific school or individual. We will not provide information that identifies 

you or your school to anyone outside the study team, except as required by law.

BENEFITS

Your participation will help the U.S. Department of Education better understand how schools use data to 

identify and intervene with students who may be at-risk for dropping out of high school. 

MORE INFORMATION

Upon completion of the survey, you will receive a $30 gift card. If you have any questions about the gift 

cards, please contact Suzanne Stachel at sstachel@air.org or 202-403-5584. For more information about 

the study in general, you may contact Dr. Ann-Marie Faria, Project Director, at afaria@air.org or 202-

403-5356. If you have concerns or questions about your rights as a participant, contact AIR’s Institutional 

Review Board (which is responsible for the protection of project participants) at IRB@air.org, toll free at 

1-800-634-0797, or c/o IRB, 1000 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Washington, DC 20007.

INFORMED CONSENT

 YES, I have read and understand the information above and I agree to participate in this online 

survey.

 NO, I have read and understand the information above and do not agree to participate in this 

online survey.


Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 8, 2021

No. 04-20-00595-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.R.H., A.M.G., AND A.J.G., CHILDREN

From the 63rd Judicial District Court, Val Verde County, Texas

Trial Court No. 24205

Honorable Enrique Fernandez, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Melinda Walker’s Notification of Late Reporter’s Record is hereby NOTED. The Court 

Reporter’s Record is due January 15, 2021.

_________________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 8th day of January, 2021.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
#### Jakeline Esmeralda HERNANDEZ-PEREZ DE RIVAS and Jakeline Yaneth Rivas-Hernandez, Petitioners, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 12-73433

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2017 *

Filed May 31, 2017

Jakeiine Esmeralda Hernandez Perez De Rivas, Pro Se

Jakeiine Yaneth Rivas-Hernandez, Pro Se

Jessica E. Burns, Esquire, Trial Attorney, Song Park, 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: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Jakeiine Esmeralda Hernandez-Perez de Rivas and Jakeiine Yaneth Rivas-Hernandez, natives and citizens of El Salvador,1 petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. *Shrestha v. Holder,*590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on Hernandez-Perez de Rivas’s inconsistent testimony regarding gang threats to her younger son, and the number of assailants involved in the shooting incident outside her home. *See id.*at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable un~ *840der the totality of the circumstances). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Hernandez-Perez de Rivas’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection because Hernandez-Perez de Rivas failed to show it is more likely than not that she would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of El Salvador. *See Silaya v. Mukasey,*524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

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

1

. On March 24, 2017, the court received a filing by Hernandez-Perez de Rivas with a statement that her daughter, Rivas-Hernandez, has been approved for DACA and that Hernandez Perez de Rivas wishes to proceed with the petition.
#### Angel Juan Pablo Reyes STUMVOLL, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-1958

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 30, 2017

Decided: April 5, 2017

H. Glenn Fogle, Jr., THE FOGLE LAW FIRM, LLC, Atlanta, Georgia, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Paul Fiori-no, Senior Litigation Counsel, Rebekah Nahas, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Angel Juan Pablo Reyes Stumvoll, a native and citizen of Bolivia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.* We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Reyes Stumvoll’s merits hearing and all supporting evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the administrative factual findings, *see*8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision. *See INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. *In re Reyes Stumvoll*(B.I.A. July 29, 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.

PETITION DENIED

*

 Reyes Stumvoll does not raise any challenges to the agency’s denial of his request for protection under the Convention Against Torture, We would lack jurisdiction over any such claims on the ground that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before the Board. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2012); *Massis v. Mukasey,*549 F.3d 631, 638-40 (4th Cir. 2008).