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

No. 16-70692

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted October 23, 2017 *

Filed November 15, 2017

Christian De Olivas, Attorney, DOLF De Olivas Law Firm, Santa Ana, CA, for Petitioner

OIL, Kerry Ann Monaco, 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 **

Reina Elizabeth Gonzales, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her 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, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. *Shrestha v. Holder,*590 F.3d 1034, 1039-1040 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies within Gonzales’s testimony as to where she was and whom she was with when her cousin was killed, whether the murder was reported to the police, and how many times she was threatened. *See id.*at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under the “totality of circumstances”). Gonzales’s explanations do not compel a contrary result. *See Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Gonzales’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 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
<LEGEND>  THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
          FROM THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
          OPERATIONS INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD
          ENDED September 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
          REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                            JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                              SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         50,934
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  32,925
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                    13,682
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              103,215
<PP&E>                                        297,113
<DEPRECIATION>                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                405,857
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          24,575
<BONDS>                                       230,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                           45
<OTHER-SE>                                    135,036
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  405,857
<SALES>                                        44,791
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               44,791
<CGS>                                          55,818
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  55,818
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                4,812
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              2,781
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (18,620)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (5,586)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (13,034)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (13,034)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  ($0.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  ($0.29)


</TABLE>
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-10187

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

BOBBY ERVIN, a/k/a Luv, a/k/a Little Bobby,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:95-CR-252-X

- - - - - - - - - -

December 10, 1996

Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Court-appointed counsel for Bobby Ervin has filed a brief as

required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our

independent review of the brief, Ervin’s response to the brief,

and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly,

counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. Ervin’s contention that counsel was
No. 96-10187

- 2 -

ineffective for failing to object to a two-level upward

adjustment to his offense level is not sufficiently developed in

the record before us; as to that contention only, Ervin’s appeal

is DISMISSED without prejudice to Ervin’s ability to raise that

contention in a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See United

States v. Higdon, 832 F.2d 312, 313-14 (5th Cir. 1987), cert.

denied, 484 U.S. 1075 (1988).
----

 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 Amended Annual Report of Aquamer Medical Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ending December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Amended Report"), I, Marshall Sterman, President, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

            (1) The Amended 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 Amended Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

Date: August 22, 2008

| /s/ Marshall Sterman                                                                                                                                                                                                                                |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          |
| Marshall Sterman, President and         Chief Executive Officer         (Principal Executive Officer) and         Acting Chief Financial Officer         (Principal Financial Officer and         Principal Accounting Officer) |
#### Lorena Alejandra ROMAN-AGUILAR, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 17-1445

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 27, 2017

Decided: November 13, 2017

Bradley B. Banias, BARNWELL, WHALEY, PATTERSON, and HELMS, Charleston, South Carolina, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readier, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Carl McIntyre, Assistant Director, Kevin J. Conway, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before TRAXLER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

*267Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Lorena Alejandra Roman-Aguilar, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing her appeal from the Immigration Judge’s denial of her requests for asylum and withholding of removal. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Roman-Aguilar’s merits hearing and all supporting evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the agency’s factual findings, *see*8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision, *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 in part for the reasons stated by the Board. *See In re Roman-Aguilar*(B.I.A. Mar. 10, 2017).

Additionally, we find that Roman-Aguilar’s due process claim could have been raised before, and remedied by, the Board, but has not been administratively exhausted. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2012). We therefore dismiss the petition for review in part with respect to this claim for lack of jurisdiction. *See Kurfees v. INS,*275 F.3d 332, 337 (4th Cir. 2001); *Farrokhi v. INS,*900 F.2d 697, 700-01 (4th Cir. 1990). 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 IN PART, AND DISMISSED IN PART*
# EUR-Lex - 32003D0096 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32003D0096

**2003/96/EC: Council Decision of 6 February 2003 concerning the conclusion of the Agreement for scientific and technological cooperation between the European Community and Ukraine **

*
Official Journal L 036 , 12/02/2003 P. 0031 - 0031 *

Council Decision

of 6 February 2003

concerning the conclusion of the Agreement for scientific and technological cooperation between the European Community and Ukraine

(2003/96/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 170, in conjunction with Article 300(2), first sentence of the first subparagraph, and Article 300(3), first subparagraph, thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission(1),

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament(2),

Whereas:

(1) A Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States of the one part, and Ukraine of the other part(3), was signed on 16 June 1994 and has entered into force on 1 March 1998.

(2) A European Council Common Strategy (1999/877/CFSP) on Ukraine(4) was adopted on 11 December 1999 at the Helsinki European Council.

(3) The European Community and Ukraine are pursuing specific RTD programmes in areas of common interest. On the basis of past experience, both sides have expressed a desire to establish a deeper and broader framework for the conduct of collaboration in science and technology. This cooperation agreement in the field of science and technology forms part of the global cooperation between the European Community and Ukraine.

(4) By its Decision of 8 October 2001, the Council authorised the Commission to negotiate on behalf of the European Community an Agreement for scientific and technological cooperation between the European Community and Ukraine. The negotiations, conducted in line with the negotiating directives, resulted in the attached Agreement and its two annexes.

(5) The Agreement was signed on 4 July 2002 in Copenhagen.

(6) The Agreement should be approved,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The Agreement for scientific and technological cooperation between the European Community and Ukraine is hereby approved on behalf of the Community.

The text of the Agreement and its two Annexes is attached to this Decision.

Article 2

The President of the Council shall, on behalf of the Community, give the notification provided for in Article 12 of the Agreement.

Done at Brussels, 6 February 2003.

For the Council

The President

P. Efthymiou

(1) Proposal of 11.10.2002 (not yet published in the Official Journal).

(2) Opinion delivered on 17 December 2002 (not yet published in the Official Journal).

(3) OJ L 49, 19.2.1998, p. 3.

(4) OJ L 331, 23.12.1999, p. 1.
### THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS Post Office Box 12248 Austin, Texas 78711 (512) 463-1312

Friday, May 12, 2023 Mr. Robert Vartabedian Alston & Bird LLP 301 Commerce St Ste 3635 Fort Worth, TX 76102-4143 * DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL * Mr. William Scott Hastings Locke Lord LLP 2200 Ross Avenue Suite 2200 Dallas, TX 75201-6776 * DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL * Mr. Ryan D. Clinton Davis Gerald & Cremer, P.C. 300 West 6th St., Suite 1830 Austin, TX 78701 * DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL * Mr. David E. Keltner Kelly Hart & Hallman LLP 201 Main Street, Suite 2500 Fort Worth, TX 76102 * DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

RE: Case Number: 21-0509 Court of Appeals Number: 05-19-00291-CV Trial Court Number: 366-01160-2018 Style: FINLEY RESOURCES, INC., FINLEY PRODUCTION CO., L.P. AND PETRO CANYON ENERGY, LLC v. HEADINGTON ROYALTY, INC. AND HEADINGTON ENERGY PARTNERS, LLC Dear Counsel:Today the Supreme Court of Texas issued an opinion(s) and judgment in the abovereferenced cause. You may obtain a copy of the opinion(s) and judgment through Case Search on our Court’s webpage at: http://www.txcourts.gov/supreme.aspx . On the Case Search page simply enter the case number and push the Search button to find the docket page for your case.
Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

### THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS Post Office Box 12248 Austin, Texas 78711 (512) 463-1312

cc: Mr. Rubin Morin (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL) Mr. Nicholas Davis (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL) Mr. Thomas F. Loose (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL) Mr. Richard M. Abernathy (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL) District Clerk Collin County (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL) Mr. Thomas M. Melsheimer (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL) Mr. Conrad Hester (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL) Mr. John Randolph Thompson III (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL) Mr. Connor Bourland (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6104 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6104

To establish a deadline for approval of claims made under the National 
            Flood Insurance Program, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 21, 2016

 Mr. Graves of Louisiana (for himself, Mr. Boustany, Mr. Richmond, and 
 Mr. Abraham) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To establish a deadline for approval of claims made under the National 
            Flood Insurance Program, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Timely Payments for Flood Victims 
Act of 2016''.

SEC. 2. DEADLINE FOR APPROVAL OF CLAIMS.

    (a) In General.--Section 1312 of the National Flood Insurance Act 
of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4019) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``The Administrator'' 
        and inserting ``Subject to other provisions of this section, 
        the Administrator''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(d) Deadline for Approval of Claims.--
            ``(1) In general.--The Administrator shall provide that, in 
        the case of any claim for damage to or loss of property under 
        flood insurance coverage made available under this title, a 
        final determination regarding approval of a claim for payment 
        or disapproval of the claim be made, and notification of such 
        determination be provided to the insured making such claim, not 
        later than the expiration of the 30-day period (as such period 
        may be extended pursuant to paragraph (2)) beginning upon the 
        day on which such claim was made. Payment of approved claims 
        shall be made as soon as possible after such approval.
            ``(2) Extension of deadline.--The Administrator shall 
        provide that the period referred to in paragraph (1) may be 
        extended by a single additional period of 15 days in cases 
        where extraordinary circumstances are demonstrated. The 
        Administrator shall, by regulation, establish criteria for 
        demonstrating such extraordinary circumstances and for 
        determining to which claims such extraordinary circumstances 
        apply.''.
    (b) Applicability.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to any claim under flood insurance coverage made available under 
the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.) 
pending on the date of the enactment of this Act and any claims made 
after such date of enactment.
                                 <all>
```
Slip Op. 14- 
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

ORDER FOR REMAND This remand order follows MacLean-Fogg Co. v. United States, 753 F.3d 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2014), reh’g en banc denied Ct. No. 13-1187, ECF No. 82 (Dec. 1, 2014) (per curiam). The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded this Court’s previous determination in MacLean-Fogg Co. v. United States, __ CIT __, 885 F. Supp. 2d 1337 (2012). Accordingly, MacLean-Fogg Co. v. United States, Consol. Ct. No. 11-00209, is hereby remanded to the Department of Commerce for reconsideration consistent with the Court of Appeals’ opinion. Commerce shall have until February 23, 2015, to complete and file its remand redetermination. Plaintiffs, Plaintiff-Intervenors, and Defendant-Intervenor shall have until March 9, 2015, to file comments. Defendant shall have until March 19, 2015, to file any reply.
IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Donald C. Pogue Donald C. Pogue, Senior Judge Dated: December 22, 2014 New York, NY

1 This action is consolidated with Court Nos. 11-00210, 11-00220, and 11-00221. Order, Aug. 23, 2011, ECF No. 26.

MACLEAN-FOGG CO., et al. , Plaintiffs,

v. UNITED STATES, Defendant. Before: Donald C. Pogue, Senior Judge Consol. Court No. 11-00209 1
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 966 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 966

       For the relief of Nathan C. Vance, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                June 26 (legislative day, June 19), 1995

  Mr. Simpson introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       For the relief of Nathan C. Vance, and for other purposes.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PAYMENT TO NATHAN C. VANCE.

    (a) Payment.--Subject to subsections (b) and (c), the Secretary of 
Agriculture shall pay $4,850.00 to Nathan C. Vance of Wyoming for fire 
loss arising out of the Mink Area Fire in and around Yellowstone 
National Park in 1988.
    (b) Source of Funds.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay the 
amount specified in subsection (a) from amounts made available under 
section 1304 of title 31, United States Code.
    (c) Condition of Payment.--The payment made pursuant to subsection 
(a) shall be in full satisfaction of the claim of Nathan C. Vance 
against the United States, for fire loss arising out of the Mink Area 
Fire, that was received by the Forest Service in August 1990.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       2,449,278
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  892,110
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    534,788
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      46,262,538
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              50,138,714
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  31,956,032
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                50,138,714
<SALES>                                          6,173
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,563,041
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,803,410
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               151,705
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                50,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             261,600
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                759,631
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            759,631
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   759,631
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.50


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7529

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

CHRISTOPHER RAPHAEL WOODBERRY,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. 

(4:02-cr-00040-TLW-1)

Submitted: March 15, 2012 Decided: March 19, 2012

Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Raphael Woodberry, Appellant Pro Se. Arthur Bradley 

Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Raphael Woodberry appeals the district 

court's order denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We 

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. United States v. Woodberry, No. 4:02–cr–00040–TLW–1 

(D.S.C. filed Oct. 31, 2011 & entered Nov. 1, 2011). 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