alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Guadalupe ECHARTEA-MENDOZA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-40353 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed December 20, 2017

*261Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Jose Guadalupe Echartea-Mendoza, Pro Se

Before JONES, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Guadalupe Echartea-Mendoza 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). Echartea-Mendoza has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Echartea-Mendoza’s response. 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 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 124 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 124

       Relating to the retirement of Frederick R. Broomfield, Sr.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                 May 22 (legislative day, May 15), 1995

    Mr. Dole (for himself and Mr. Daschle) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
       Relating to the retirement of Frederick R. Broomfield, Sr.
Whereas on June 30, 1995, Frederick R. Broomfield, Sr. will retire from service 
        as a member of the Department of Office Services staff within the Office 
        of the Secretary of the Senate after almost 20 years;
Whereas he has upheld the high standards and traditions of the Office of the 
        Secretary of the Senate with abiding devotion; and
Whereas he has gained the trust, confidence, and respect of his associates and 
        the Members of the United States Senate: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the United States Senate expresses its deep 
appreciation and gratitude to Frederick R. Broomfield, Sr., for his 
years of faithful and exemplary service to his country and to the 
United States Senate.
    Sec. 2. The Secretary shall transmit a copy of this resolution to 
Frederick R. Broomfield, Sr.
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Domingo CRUZ-MIGUEL, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-40203 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed December 20, 2017

*257Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Domingo Cruz-Miguel, Pro Se

Before JONES, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Domingo Cruz-Miguel 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). Cruz-Miguel 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.
Bank
                  of America, N.A.900
                  West Trade StreetSuite
                  650NC1-026-06-01Charlotte,
                  NC 28255
                www.bankamerica.com





ANNUAL
      STATEMENT AS TO COMPLIANCE


OFFICER'S
      CERTIFICATION




Re: Deutsche
      Mortgage & Asset Receiving Corporation


Commercial
      Mortgage Pass-Through
      Certificates


Series
      2006-C8




In
      connection with the above-referenced transaction the undersigned officer, on
      behalf of Bank
      of
      America, N.A., hereby certifies that (i) a review of the Sub-Servicing
      activities, for
      the
      period ending December 31, 2006 and of its performance under the Sub-Servicing Agreement
      dated as of December 1, 2006 has been made under my supervision, and (ii) to
      the
      best of my knowledge, based on such review, Bank of America, N.A. has fulfilled all
      of
      its obligations under this agreement in all material respects throughout the aforementioned
      period.




Bank
      of
      America, N.A.






/s/
      Sean
      D. Reilly


Sean
      D.
      Reilly


Principal








/s/
      Michael H. Lumadue


Michael
      H. Lumadue


Vice
      President
#### Cesar LEYVA-HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-70448

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2017 *

Filed June 1, 2017

David Andrew Schlesinger, Esquire, Jacobs & Schlesinger LLP, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner

Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Anthony W. Norwood, Senior Litigation Counsel, *891DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, 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 **

Cesar Leyva-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and review de novo questions of law. *Bonilla v. Lynch,*840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not err or abuse its discretion in denying Leyva-Hernandez’s motion to reopen, based on ineffective assistance of counsel, for failure to demonstrate prejudice, where he has not explained how he might have successfully challenged the BIA’s prior decision before this court had the prior petition been timely filed. *See*8 C.F.R. § 214.14(c) (outlining procedures to apply for a U Visa); *Mohammed v. Gonzales,*400 F.Sd 785, 793-94 (9th Cir. 2005) (to demonstrate prejudice, alien must show counsel’s performance was so inadequate that it may have affected the outcome of proceedings). In light of this determination, Leyva-Hernandez’s motion to take judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 19) is denied.

The BIA also did not err in declining to reopen based on Leyva-Hernandez’s contention that his former attorney was ineffective for failing to seek prosecutorial discretion, where prosecutorial discretion is under the authority of the Department of Homeland Security. *See Hernandez-Mancilla v. Holder,*633 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir. 2011) (finding no ineffective assistance of counsel due process violation, where the actions of counsel occurred outside the context of removal proceedings).

Any errors in the BIA’s decision are harmless. *See Vides-Vides v. INS,*783 F.2d 1463, 1469 (9th Cir. 1986) (as amended) (applying the harmless error standard to agency’s procedural error).

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



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL AND EXECUTIVE FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 of Action Acquisition Corporation (the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joseph Rozelle, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge that:



1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 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: October 14, 2008



|                                                                     |  | 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/ Joseph Rozelle                                                   |  | 
|Joseph Rozelle
President
(Principal Executive and Financial Officer) |  | 





The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Report pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and  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, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Report for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filings of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
<PAGE>

42

                                                                       Form 10-Q


                                  Exhibit (99)1

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

I, Patricia F. Russo, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Lucent
Technologies Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

     (1)  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly
          period ended March 31, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the
          requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
          of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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

Dated: May 13, 2003


/s/ Patricia F. Russo
-------------------------------------
Patricia F. Russo
Chairman and Chief 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 Homeland Security Capital Corporation
      (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2008, as filed
      with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
      "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below,
      hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his
      knowledge:




1.
            The
                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
                of
                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
                and




2.
            The
                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
                Company.




**HOMELAND
              SECURITY CAPITAL CORPORATION**Dated:
                May 15, 2008
            By:
            /s/
                Michael T. BriganteName:
            Michael
                T. BriganteTitle:
            Chief
                Financial Officer and
              Principal
                Accounting Officer





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to Homeland Security Capital Corporation
      and
      will be retained by Homeland Security Capital Corporation and furnished to
      the
      United States Securities and Exchange Commission or its Staff upon
      request.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 6 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 6

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
                  relating to voluntary school prayer.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 4, 1995

  Mr. Thurmond (for himself, Mr. Faircloth, Mr. Lott, and Mr. Shelby) 
  introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
                  relating to voluntary school prayer.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is hereby proposed as 
an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution if 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the 
Congress:

                              ``Article--

    ``Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit 
individual or group prayer in public schools or other public 
institutions. No person shall be required by the United States or by 
any State to participate in prayer. Neither the United States nor any 
State shall compose the words of any prayer to be said in public 
schools.''.
                                 <all>
```
|    |                                                                                                      |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Sabine Pass LNG, L.P.; and |

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. |

|                                                 |
|-------------------------------------------------|
|                                                 |
| /s/ Neal A. Shear                               |
| Neal A. Shear                                   |
| Interim Chief Executive Officer of              |
| Sabine Pass LNG-GP, LLC, the general partner of |
| Sabine Pass LNG, L.P.                           |
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:? U.S. DOT/FAA - Regulatory Evaluation Form

? U.S. DOT/FAA - Unscannable Items List

? U.S. DOT/FAA - Final rule; request for comments

? U.S. DOT/FAA - Final rule; request for comments grid
#### Ronald David JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GRAND CANYON UNIVERSITY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-15805

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted November 15, 2017 *

Filed November 21, 2017

Ronald David Jones, Pro Se

*613Mark Andrew Hanson, Schern Richardson Finter Decker, PLC, Mesa, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: OANBY, 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 **

Ronald David Jones appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), *Skilstaf, Inc. v. CVS Caremark Corp.,*669 F.3d 1005, 1014 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Jones’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims because Jones failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants acted under color of state law. *See West v. Atkins,*487 U.S. 42, 48, 108 S.Ct. 2250, 101 L.Ed.2d 40 (1988) (to state a claim under § 1983 a plaintiff must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law); *Rendell-Baker v. Kohn,*457 U.S. 830, 839-43, 102 S.Ct. 2764, 73 L.Ed.2d 418 (1982) (a privately owned school is not a state actor for purposes of § 1983).

The district court properly dismissed Jones’s federal discrimination claims because Jones failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claims, *See Hebbe v. Pliler,*627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff must still present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim' for relief); *Diaz v. Eagle Produce Ltd. P’ship,*521 F.3d 1201, 1207 (9th Cir. 2008) (setting forth elements of a claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act); *Cordova v. State Farm Ins. Cos.,*124 F.3d 1145, 1148 (9th Cir. 1997) (setting forth elements of a discrimination claim under Title VII); *Kennedy v. Applause, Inc.,*90 F.3d 1477, 1481 (9th Cir. 1996) (setting forth elements of a discrimination claim under the American with Disabilities Act).

The district court properly dismissed Jones’s claim under the Florida Civil Rights Act (“FCRA”) because Jones failed to file his complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (“FCHR”) prior to filing this action. *See Woodham v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Fla., Inc.,*829 So.2d 891, 894 (Fla. 2002) (filing a complaint with the FCHR is a prerequisite to bringing a civil action based upon an alleged violation of the FCRA).

We reject as unsupported by the record Jones’s contentions that service of Grand Canyon University’s motion to dismiss was untimely and that defendants’ answering brief was untimely filed.

AFFIRMED,

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,
Exhibit 10.6


Independent auditors' consent


To
The Board of Directors
Bahia Sul Celulose S.A.:

We hereby consent to the use of our report dated February 6, 2001 included
herein in this Annual Report on Form 20-F of Companhia Vale do Rio Doce,
relating to the consolidated financial statements of Bahia Sul Celulose S.A.
for the years ended December 31, 2000 and 1999.


/s/ KPMG Auditors Independentes

Sao Paulo, Brazil
June 27, 2002
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           1,714
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   36,959
<ALLOWANCES>                                     8,634
<INVENTORY>                                      3,044
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                37,152
<PP&E>                                         110,133
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,980
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 164,747
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,755
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           170
<OTHER-SE>                                      82,164
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   164,747
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                73,860
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   71,856
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 6,098
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,098
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,004
<INCOME-TAX>                                       802
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,202
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    134
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,068
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1

                             ARTHROCARE CORPORATION
                                  EXHIBIT 11.1
                        COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE
                      (In thousands, except per share data)
                                   (Unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                    Three months ended:                Nine months ended:
                                            September 28,    September 30,         September 28,  September 30,
                                                1996             1995                  1996           1995
                                                ----             ----                  ----           ----

<S>                                             <C>               <C>               <C>               <C>  
Weighted average common shares                  8,714             1,733             4,940             1,634
   outstanding for the period

Common equivalent shares pursuant to
   Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 83                --             3,117             3,117             3,117
                                              -------           -------           -------           -------

Shares used in per share calculation            8,714             4,850             8,057             4,751
                                              =======           =======           =======           =======

Net loss                                      $(1,932)          $(2,009)          $(5,410)          $(4,662)
                                              =======           =======           =======           =======

Net loss per share                            $ (0.22)          $ (0.41)          $ (0.67)          $ (0.98)
                                              =======           =======           =======           =======
</TABLE>


                                    29 of 29