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

No. 16-70122

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted October 23, 2017 *

Filed November 3, 2017

Guadalupe T. Garcia, Attorney, Law Offices of Guadalupe T. Garcia, West Covina, CA, for Petitioner

Jeremy M. Bylund, Remi da Rocha-Afo-du, Trial Attorneys, 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: LEAVY, 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 **

Salvador Morales-Jasso, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to remand and dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to remand. *See Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey,*538 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Morales-Jasso’s motion to remand to consider voluntary departure where he did not apply for such relief before the IJ and did not allege he was not given an opportunity to do so or that circumstances had changed. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); *Najmabadi v. Holder,*597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) (listing grounds on which a motion to reopen can be denied).

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary denial of cancellation of removal. *See Vilchez v. Holder,*682 F.3d 1195, 1201 (9th Cir. 2012).

*755We also lack jurisdiction to consider Morales-Jasso’s unexhausted contention that the IJ failed to inform him of the availability of voluntary departure. *See Tijani v. Holder,*628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (the court lacks jurisdiction to consider legal claims not presented in an alien’s proceedings before the agency).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EXHIBIT 11.1

                        DAWSON PRODUCTION SERVICES, INC.
                        EARNINGS PER SHARE COMPUTATIONS

                                                     Three Months Ended June 30,
                                                          1996         1997
                                                       ----------   ----------
Primary Earnings Per Share
Net Income .........................................   $    1,016   $    1,876
                                                       ----------   ----------
Shares used in earnings per share computation ......        6,510       11,245
                                                       ----------   ----------
Earnings per share .................................   $     0.16   $     0.17
                                                       ----------   ----------

Fully Diluted Earnings Per Share
Net Income .........................................   $    1,016   $    1,876
                                                       ----------   ----------
Shares used in earnings per share computations .....        6,510       11,315
                                                       ----------   ----------
Earnings per share .................................   $     0.16   $     0.17
                                                       ----------   ----------

                COMPUTATION OF SHARES USED IN EARNINGS PER SHARE
                              COMPUTATIONS-PRIMARY

Weighted average outstanding common shares .........        6,391       11,126
                                                       ----------   ----------
Average other common equivalent shares-dilutive
  effect of option shares .........................          119          119
                                                       ----------   ----------
Shares used in earnings per share computations .....        6,510       11,245
                                                       ----------   ----------

                COMPUTATION OF SHARES USED IN EARNINGS PER SHARE
                           COMPUTATIONS-FULLY DILUTED

Weighted average outstanding common shares .........        6,391       11,126
                                                       ----------   ----------
Average other common equivalent shares-dilutive
  effect of option shares ..........................          119          189
                                                       ----------   ----------
Shares used in earnings per share computation ......        6,510       11,315
                                                       ----------   ----------
EXHIBIT 31.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               SECTION 302 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Joseph L. Sullivan, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this  quarterly  report on Form 10-Q of CE Casecnan Water and
Energy Company, Inc.;

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;

3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial  condition,  results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.  The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and  I are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

a) Designed such disclosure  controls and procedures,  or caused such disclosure
controls and  procedures to be designed  under our  supervision,  to ensure that
material  information  relating to the  registrant,  including its  consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,  particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated  the  effectiveness  of the  registrant's  disclosure  controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions  about the effectiveness
of the disclosure  controls and procedures,  as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial  reporting that occurred  during the  registrant's  most recent fiscal
quarter that has  materially  affected,  or is  reasonably  likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent  evaluation of internal  control over  financial  reporting,  to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent function):

a) All  significant  deficiencies  and  material  weaknesses  in the  design  or
operation of internal  control over  financial  reporting  which are  reasonably
likely  to  adversely  affect  the  registrant's  ability  to  record,  process,
summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any  fraud,  whether  or not  material,  that  involves  management  or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's  internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: April 28, 2004

                             /s/ Joseph L. Sullivan
                             ----------------------
                               Joseph L. Sullivan
                                    President
                            (chief executive officer)
#### Tomas Lundes PEREZ, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 14-72659

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted November 15, 2017*

Filed November 20, 2017

Alejandro Garcia, Attorney, Law Offices of Alejandro Garcia, Commerce, CA, for Petitioner

Laura Halliday Hickein, Attorney, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: 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 **

Tomas Lundes Perez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying withholding of removal and deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the agency’s particularly serious crime determination and review for substantial evidence the denial of relief under CAT. *Konou v. Holder, 750*F.3d 1120, 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in determining that Lundes Perez’s conviction is a particularly serious crime that renders him ineligible for withholding of removal. *See 8*U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii) (alien convicted of a particularly serious crime is ineligible for withholding of removal); *Konou, 750*F.3d at 1126-27 (listing factors to consider in determining whether a crime is particularly serious). Contrary to Lundes Perez’s contentions, the record does not show that the BIA failed to address whether the circumstances of his crime indicated he would be a danger to the community, engaged in impermissible fact finding, or erroneously indicated Lundes Perez did not challenge the IJ’s adverse credibility determination.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of relief under the CAT, where Lundes Perez failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not that he would be tortured upon returning to Mexico. *See 8*C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2); *Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder,*600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (generalized evidence of violence and crime that is not particular to the alien is not sufficient to meet the standard for CAT protection).

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 unaudited balance
                              sheet of Lucent at March 31, 1997 and the
                              unaudited consolidated statement of income for the
                              six-month period ended March 31, 1997 and is
                              qualified in its entirety by reference to such
                              financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                      OCT-1-1996
<PERIOD-END>                        MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                    2,013
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                             5,086
<ALLOWANCES>                                301
<INVENTORY>                               2,733
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         12,270
<PP&E>                                   11,069
<DEPRECIATION>                            6,309
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           22,486
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     9,345
<BONDS>                                   1,678
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                      6
<OTHER-SE>                                3,582
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             22,486
<SALES>                                  13,087
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         13,087
<CGS>                                     7,277
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             7,277
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          4,197
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             63
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          156
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           1,506
<INCOME-TAX>                                581
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         925
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                925
<EPS-PRIMARY>                              1.45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 0
        


</TABLE>
#### GUANGXIA ZUO; et al., Petitioners, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 14-73786

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted November 9, 2017 Pasadena, California

Filed November 24, 2017

Dennis James Eoffe, Attorney, Law Office of Dennis Eoffe, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioners

Lindsay Donahue, 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: REINHARDT and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and DANIEL,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Wiley Y. Daniel, United States District Judge for the U.S. District Court for Colorado, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Guangxia Zuo, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), dismissing her appeal of a removal order denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and reviewing the BIA decision for substantial evidence, *Ahmed v. Keisler,*504 F.3d 1183, 1191 (9th Cir. 2007), we grant the petition for review.

1. The BIA’s adverse credibility finding, based on two minor omissions in Zuo’s application and its belief that she did not adequately explain those omissions, was not supported by substantial evidence and is reversed. *See Lai v. Holder,*773 F.3d 966 (9th Cir. 2014).

2. The BIA’s alternative finding that, “even assuming credibility,” Zuo did not establish a well-founded fear of religious persecution in China, was not supported by substantial evidence. Zuo demonstrated a particularized threat beyond the generalized risk to all practitioners of the I-Kuan Tao religion. *See Al-Harbi v. I.N.S.,*242 F.3d 882, 888 (9th Cir. 2001). The BIA’s finding as to well-founded fear is reversed. We remand for a grant of withholding of removal and consideration of a grant of asylum. We do not reach the merits of Zuo’s CAT claim because we grant the petition on other grounds.

Petition GRANTED.

**

 xhiS disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS OF NETLOJIX COMMUNICATIONS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES AS
OF MARCH 31, 1999 AND THE RELATED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE
THREE MONTHS THEN ENDED.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                             305
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,264
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,516
<PP&E>                                             834
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   9,957
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,957
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                           105
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,890
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     9,957
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,701
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,246
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,977
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  51
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,565)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,565)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (1,502)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,066)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.29)


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 188 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

  1st Session
S. RES. 188

   To designate October 30, 1995, as ``National Drug Awareness Day''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             October 27 (legislative day, October 26), 1995

Mr. Grassley submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   To designate October 30, 1995, as ``National Drug Awareness Day''.

Whereas illegal drug use among the youth of America is on the increase;
Whereas illegal drug use is a major health problem, ruining thousands of lives 
        and costing billions of dollars;
Whereas illegal drug use contributes to crime on the streets and in the homes of 
        this nation;
Whereas national attention has turned from illegal drug use to other issues, and 
        support for sustained programs has decreased;
Whereas public awareness and sustained programs are essential to combat an on-
        going social problem;
Whereas the answer to the illegal drug problem lies in America's communities, 
        with local people involved in grass roots activities to keep their 
        communities safe and drug free and to encourage personal responsibility;
Whereas the annual Red Ribbon Celebration, coordinated by the National Family 
        Partnership and involving over 80,000,000 Americans in prevention 
        activities each year, commemorates the sacrifices of people on the front 
        lines in the war against illegal drug use;
Whereas substance abuse prevention, law enforcement, international narcotics 
        control, and community awareness efforts contribute to preventing young 
        people from starting illegal drug use; and
Whereas the American people have a continuing responsibility to combat illegal 
        drug use: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate designate October 30, 1995, as ``National 
Drug Awareness Day''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 112 (Monday, June 11, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 34455]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14129]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 7919]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Century of the Child: Growing by Design 1900-2000''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 
of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 
257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Century of the Child: Growing by Design 
1900-2000'' imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the 
United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported 
pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I 
also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at 
The Museum of Modern Art, New York, NY, from on or about July 29, 2012, 
until on or about November 5, 2012; and at possible additional 
exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national 
interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be 
published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6467). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, 
Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: June 05, 2012,
J. Adam Ereli,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2012-14129 Filed 6-8-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 12
 
             CASE CREDIT CORPORATION AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES
 
               COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                             (Dollars in millions)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                  Three Months
                                                                      Ended
                                                                    March 31,
                                                                  -------------
                                                                   1999   1998
                                                                  ------ ------
<S>                                                               <C>    <C>
Net income....................................................... $   20 $   19
Add:
  Interest expense...............................................     45     29
  Amortization of capitalized debt expense.......................      1    --
  Income tax expense and other taxes on income...................     11     11
                                                                  ------ ------
    Earnings as defined.......................................... $   77 $   59
                                                                  ====== ======
Interest expense................................................. $   45 $   29
Amortization of capitalized debt expense.........................      1    --
                                                                  ------ ------
    Fixed charges as defined..................................... $   46 $   29
                                                                  ====== ======
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges...............................  1.67x  2.03x
                                                                  ====== ======
</TABLE>
 
                                       15