alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Pablo Ajqui DE LA CRUZ Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General of the United States Respondent

No. 17-1061

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: September 20, 2017

Filed: September 29, 2017

Joseph Lopez Wilson, Omaha, NE, for Petitioner

Karen Yolanda Drummond, Carl H. McIntyre, Kerry Ann Monaco, Trial Attorney, Steven Kiyoto Uejio, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Guatemalan citizen Pablo Ajqui De La Cruz petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the decision of an immigration judge (IJ), which denied him asylum and withholding of removal.1

To qualify for asylum, Ajqui De La Cruz was required to show that he was unable or unwilling to return to Guatemala due to persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution, on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. See Gutierrez-Vidal v. Holder, 709 F.3d 728, 732 (8th Cir. 2013). In testimony found credible by the IJ, Ajqui De La Cruz described how he and his father-in-law were attacked in 2000 by unknown, masked individuals whom he believed may have been motivated by his former association with guerillas. The agency determined he had not established persecution as required for asylum relief, finding, inter alia, that he failed to show *888the government was unable or unwilling to control the private individuals who attacked him and his father-in-law in 2000, or any individuals he fears might seek him if he returned. Ajqui De La Cruz has not presented any meaningful argument that this finding was erroneous; thus, we conclude that he has waived this issue. See Chay-Velasquez, 367 F.3d at 756 (waiver of issues). Because Ajqui De La Cruz’s failure to make this showing was fatal to both his asylum claim and his withholding-of-removal claim, we need not consider the arguments he raises on appeal. See Gutierrez-Vidal, 709 F.3d at 732 (to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution, asylum applicant must show that the government condoned assaults, or was unable or unwilling to control the private actors who committed them); see also Edionseri v. Sessions, 860 F.3d 1101, 1105 (8th Cir. 2017) (standard for withholding of removal also requires showing that the government, or private parties the government is unable or unwilling to control, inflicted or will inflict harm). Accordingly, the petition is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The IJ's denial of relief under the Convention Against Terror is not before this court. See Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir. 2004) (petitioner waives claim by failing to raise it in opening brief).
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 18

- 11171 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________

Agency No. A088

- 662

- 707 ABDUL RAZZAK KANJIANI,
Petitioner,

versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

____________________ ____ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

________________________ (September 7, 2018)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR , NEWSOM and JULIE CARNES , Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
Abdul Razzak Kanjiani , a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions for review

of the decision affirm ing an order that removed him from the United States. The

Case: 18-11171 Date Filed: 09/07/2018 Page: 1 of 22 Board of Immigration Ap peals agreed with the findings of the imm igration judge

that Kanjiani was ineligible for asylum because he had been convicted of an aggravated felony , he was not credible , and he failed to establish a well

- founded

fear of future religious persecution as a S hia M uslim. We dismiss Kanjiani’s petition. We lack jurisdiction to review K anjiani ’s petition for review

. Because Kanjiani conceded that he was re movable for committing a crime relating to
controlled substances, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i), and for co mmitting an aggravated felony, id. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) , we lack jurisdiction to review the final order of removal against him. See id. § 1252(a)( 2)(C). Although w e retain jurisdiction to review “constitutional claims or questions of law,” id

. § 1252(a)(2)(D), Kanjiani’s challenges to the adverse credibility determination and to the weight given to his corroborating evidence are “ insufficient to state a legal claim over which we have jurisdiction ,” Fynn v. U.S. Att ’ y Gen. , 752 F.3d 1250, 1253 (11th Cir. 2014) . Kanjiani also contests the finding that his conviction for selling methylenedioxypyrovalerone qualifies as a particularly serious crime, bu t

w e will not consider an issue that the Board declined to address on appeal. See
Gonzalez v. U.S. Att ’ y Gen. , 820 F.3d 399, 403 (11th Cir. 2016)

. We DISMISS Kanjiani’s petition for review. Case: 18-11171 Date Filed: 09/07/2018 Page: 2 of 2
Martin, Michael (OST) CbT-OSX- Qopg^ - WHM: Co 

From: scma01@atlanticbbn.net 1 

Sent: Thursday, April 22,2010 5:24 PIVI - -; 

To: EAS(OST) :^ 

Cc: dpdilling@cfaith.com 

Subject: Colgan Air Service at AOO (Martinsburg/Altoona, PA 

Gentlemen: ;El 

S 

As a weekly traveler into and out of AOO, please allow me to express my pleasure with and endorsement of Colgan Air. I 

find the folks at Colgan Air to be both professional and pleasant. I have found them to be significantly superior to other 

commuter airlines with whom I have flown over the years. 

Now I understand that the contract with Colgan Air is up for renewal. I eagerly endorse Colgan Air in this matter and 

humbly ask that the contract with them be extended. 

Thank you. 

Sincerely, 

Duane P. Dilling
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 145 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 145

          To elect Martin P. Paone Secretary for the Minority.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                June 29 (legislative day, June 19), 1995

 Mr. Daschle submitted the following resolution; which was considered 
                             and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
          To elect Martin P. Paone Secretary for the Minority.

    Resolved, That Martin P. Paone be, and he is hereby, elected 
Secretary for the Minority of the Senate, effective July 11, 1995.
```
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 725 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 725

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the estate tax and 
                   retain stepped-up basis at death.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 4, 2015

     Mr. Latta (for himself, Mr. Jones, Mr. Messer, Mr. Joyce, Mr. 
Farenthold, Mr. Gosar, Mr. Poe of Texas, Mr. Long, Mr. Jody B. Hice of 
 Georgia, and Mr. Duncan of Tennessee) introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the estate tax and 
                   retain stepped-up basis at death.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Permanently Repeal the Estate Tax 
Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF ESTATE TAX AND RETENTION OF BASIS STEP-UP.

    Effective for estates of decedents dying after December 31, 2014, 
chapter 11 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is repealed.
                                 <all>
```
# Designation of the State of Qatar as a Major Non-NATO Ally

# Memorandum for the Secretary of State

                    By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and by section 517 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2321k) (the “Act”), I hereby designate the State of Qatar as a major Non-NATO Ally of the United States for the purposes of the Act and the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751*et seq*.).                 

                    You are authorized and directed to publish this determination in the                     *Federal Register*.                 

[FR Doc. 2022-05773

Billing code 4710-10-P
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

A.J., the Father,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,

Appellee.

No. 4D20-1123

[September 24, 2020]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Shari Africk Olefson, Judge; L.T. Case No. 16-001409DP.

Antony P. Ryan, Regional Counsel, and Paul O'Neil, Assistant Regional 

Counsel, Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, West Palm 

Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Carolyn Schwarz, 

Assistant Attorney General, Children’s Legal Services, Fort Lauderdale, for 

appellee.

Thomasina F. Moore, Statewide Director of Appeals, and Samantha C. 

Valley, Senior Attorney, Statewide Guardian Ad Litem Office, Tallahassee, 

for Guardian Ad Litem Program.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CIKLIN, FORST and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
| 1.     | Such Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2009, 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the Year ended December 31, 2009, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of JBI Inc. |

|                         |   |                 |   |
|------------------------------|--------|----------------------|--------|
| Date: December 15, 2010 | By:    | /s/ Ron Baldwin, Jr. |   |
|                         |   | Ron Baldwin, Jr.     |   |
|                         |   | CFO                  |   |
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 861 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

  1st Session
                                 S. 861

   To require a General Accounting Office study of duplication among 
                certain international affairs grantees.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                 May 25 (legislative day, May 15), 1995

   Ms. Snowe introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
             referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To require a General Accounting Office study of duplication among 
                certain international affairs grantees.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE STUDY OF DUPLICATION AMONG CERTAIN 
              INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS GRANTEES.

    (a) Study of Certain Grantees for Duplication of Functions.--The 
Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a study on the 
purposes and activities of the North/South Center, East-West Center, 
Asia Foundation, and the National Endowment for Democracy on the extent 
to which the activities of these organizations duplicate activities 
that are conducted elsewhere in the United States Government. Such 
study shall include, but not be limited to, an evaluation of whether 
such organizations undertake unique activities that are central to the 
conduct of American foreign policy and which are incapable of being 
performed directly by an agency of the United States Government.
    (b) Report to Congress.--Not later than one year after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States 
shall prepare and submit a report of the findings of such study to the 
Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and Committee on 
International Relations of the House of Representatives.
                                 <all>
```
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

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

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

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 11, 2009

p0831 

# Order

September 11, 2009

138993

THOMAS HOLLIDAY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 138993 COA: 281319 Oakland CC: 2006-078526-ND PIONEER STATE MU TUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 5, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.
From: Higgins, Cortney [mailto:Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov] 

Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 4:58 PM 

To: Wayland, Robertj 

Subject: Tomorrow -- DOE 

Hi Bob, 

If we have the meeting from 1-2 tomorrow, will Kevin be on the call? DOE prefers the 5-6 time slot 

(and in person). I’m thinking that if we can do an in person meeting (Thurs or Friday), it will be 

best. It sounds like Thursday is better than Friday on your end? 

Regards, 

Cortney 

________________________________________________ 

Cortney Higgins, PhD 

Policy Analyst 

OMB/OIRA/NRE 

202.395.7856 

chiggins@omb.eop.gov
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> EXHIBIT 27

FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE

"This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
from June 30, 1996 10QSB and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements."
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                               <C>
<PERIOD-START>                         MAR-01-1996
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                      JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                            8,843
<SECURITIES>                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                     1,500
<ALLOWANCES>                      0
<INVENTORY>                       17,845,730
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  10,343
<PP&E>                            46,437
<DEPRECIATION>                         (246,543)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         17,655,967
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             285
<BONDS>                           16,300
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>             0    
<PREFERRED>                       1,212
<COMMON>                          45,632
<OTHER-SE>                        17,592,538
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      17,655,967
<SALES>                           0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  0
<CGS>                             0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     2,382
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   (2,382)
<INCOME-TAX>                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    (2,382)
<DISCONTINUED>                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                   0
<CHANGES>                              0
<NET-INCOME>                      (2,382)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                     0
<EPS-DILUTED>                     0
        

</TABLE>
# EUR-Lex - 32003D0807 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32003D0807

**2003/807/CFSP: Council Decision 2003/807/CFSP of 17 November 2003 extending and amending Decision 2002/842/CFSP concerning the implementation of Joint Action 2002/589/CFSP with a view to a European Union contribution to combating the destabilising accumulation and spread of small arms and light weapons in South East Europe **

*
Official Journal L 302 , 20/11/2003 P. 0039 - 0039 *

Council Decision 2003/807/CFSP

of 17 November 2003

extending and amending Decision 2002/842/CFSP concerning the implementation of Joint Action 2002/589/CFSP with a view to a European Union contribution to combating the destabilising accumulation and spread of small arms and light weapons in South East Europe

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 23(2) thereof,

Having regard to Council Joint Action 2002/589/CFSP of 12 July 2002 on the European Union's contribution to combating the destabilising accumulation and spread of small arms and light weapons(1), and in particular Article 6 thereof,

Whereas:

(1) On 21 October 2002 the Council adopted Decision 2002/842/CFSP(2) concerning a European Union contribution to combating the destabilising accumulation and spread of small arms and light weapons in South East Europe, which was aimed at implementing Joint Action 2002/589/CFSP and which made available EUR 200000 for this purpose.

(2) Some objectives could not be fulfilled by 22 December 2003, the date on which Decision 2002/842/CFSP expires, and others should be consolidated and expanded after that date.

(3) The Commission should ensure an adequate visibility of the contribution of the European Union to the projects including by appropriate measures taken by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).

(4) Decision 2002/842/CFSP should therefore be extended and amended,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

Decision 2002/842/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:

1. the following paragraph shall be added to Article 1:

"4. The financing agreement to be concluded will stipulate that UNDP shall ensure visibility of the contribution of the European Union to the project, appropriate to its size."

2. in Article 2(1), the financial reference amount "EUR 200000" shall be replaced by "EUR 300000"; this amount is additional to the amount made available for the preceding Decision concerning this action;

3. in Article 4(1), the second sentence shall be replaced by the sentence "It shall expire on 31 December 2004".

Article 2

This Decision shall take effect on 23 December 2003.

Article 3

This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 17 November 2003.

For the Council

The President

F. Frattini

(1) OJ L 191, 19.7.2002, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 289, 26.10.2002, p. 1.
#### Aaron L. STRIBLING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BROCK, Psychologist, Salinas Valley State Prison; Mahan, Psychologist, Salinas Valley State Prison, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-15698

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted November 15, 2017 *

FILED NOVEMBER 20, 2017

Aaron L. Stribling, Crescent City, CA, pro se.

Sara D. Van Loh, Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges,

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Aaron L. Stri-bling appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Toguchi v. Chung,*391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Stribling’s deliberate *462indifference claim concerning his mental health treatment because Stribling failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to his health. *See id.*at 1057-60 (prison officials act with deliberate indifference only if they know of and disregard an excessive risk to an inmate’s health; a difference of opinion between a prisoner and medical authorities regarding the appropriate course of treatment, negligence, or medical malpractice do not amount to deliberate indifference).

We do not consider Stribling’s arguments concerning discovery issues in the district court that were 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       2,517,809
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               17,746,038
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 23,086,400
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            47,728,714
<PP&E>                                      33,365,773
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             143,803,737
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       17,887,470
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        17,312
<OTHER-SE>                                 120,766,955
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               143,803,737
<SALES>                                     58,710,887
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            58,710,887
<CGS>                                       27,243,404
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               27,243,404
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             103,861
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             14,256,212
<INCOME-TAX>                                 5,879,197
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          8,377,015
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 8,377,015
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.48
        

</TABLE>