alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Omar Sharif COLE, also known as Baby Loc, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11529 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed December 20, 2017

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

Omar Sharif Cole, Pro Se

Before JONES, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Omar Sharif Cole 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). Cole has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Cole’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 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eduard BANGIYEV, a/k/a Eddie, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-7346

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 22, 2018

Decided: February 27, 2018

Richard Klugh, LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD C. KLUGH, Miami, Florida, for Appellant. Gordon D. Kromberg, Kimberly Riley Pedersen, Karen Ledbetter Taylor, Assistant United States Attorneys, Allison Ickovic, Jonathan David Scharf, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES *335ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Ap-pellee.

Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Eduard Bangiyev seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v.*McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bangiyev has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose ORTEGA, also known as Tachis, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-10307 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed January 24, 2018

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

Jose Ortega, Pro Se

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Jose Ortega has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed briefs 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). Ortega has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s briefs and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Ortega’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.
# Official Journal L 64/2018

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 64 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 617 March 2018 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 64

English edition

Legislation

Volume 617 March 2018

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Decision (EU, Euratom) 2018/335 of the representatives of the Governments of the Member States of 28 February 2018 appointing Judges and Advocates-General to the Court of Justice | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

DECISIONS

*

Decision (EU, Euratom) 2018/335 of the representatives of the Governments of the Member States of 28 February 2018 appointing Judges and Advocates-General to the Court of Justice

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arnold Mark HENRY, a/k/a B, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-7012

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 21, 2017

Decided: December 28, 2017

Arnold Mark Henry, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Michael Comstock, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

*208Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Arnold Mark Henry appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court.*
      *United States v. Henry, No. 2:93-*cr-00131-HCM-3 (E.D. Va. July 28, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*

While a district court lacks authority to rule on a successive § 3582(c)(2) motion, "this prohibition [is] non-jurisdictional, and thus waived when the government failed to assert it below.” *United States v. May,*855 F.3d 271, 274 (4th Cir. 2017). Here, "[b]ecause the government failed to raise this non-jurisdictional limitation below, it is waived on appeal.” *Id.*at 275.
Exhibit 35.1


                                                       IMPAC FUNDING CORPORATION
                                        19500 JAMBOREE ROAD | IRVINE, CA | 92612
                                         WWW.IMPACCOMPANIES.COM | 1-800-597-4101

                    ITEM 1123 ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

                            Impac Funding Corporation

                        Impac Secured Assets Corp, 2006-5

            I, Mario Fegan, a duly authorized officer of Impac Funding
      Corporation, as master servicer (the "Master Servicer") pursuant to the
      Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the "Agreement"), hereby certify that:

            1. A review of the Master Servicer's activities during the period
      from and including January 1, 2006 through and including December 31, 2006
      (the "Reporting Period") and of the Master Servicer's performance under
      the Agreement has been made under my supervision.

            2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master
      Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all
      material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

            IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this
      Certificate this 20th day of March 2007.


[LOGO] IMPAC(R)

                                                  By: /s/ Mario Fegan
                                                      --------------------------
                                                  Name: Mario Fegan
                                                  Title: V.P., Master Servicing
No. 11-9693.

#### Collick *v.*Washington.

Ct. App. Wash. Cer-

tiorari denied.
#### Kimbley Denise HILL, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CITY OF AUSTIN PUBLIC WORKS; City of Austin Law Department; Stephanie S. Hawkins, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-50609 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed December 21, 2017

Kimbley Denise Hill, Pro Se

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Kimbley Denise Hill appeals the district court’s dismissal of her civil lawsuit against the City of Austin Public Works, City of Austin Law Department, and Stephanie S. Hawkins. Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that she was sexually harassed during her employment with the City of Austin Public Works and then wrongfully terminated in 2007 after she reported the harassment to the human resources department. As the district court noted, however, Hill was barred by an order dated February 28, 2008, from filing any future civil actions in the Western District of Texas without first obtaining leave from the district court. Because Hill did not obtain leave of court before commencing the instant action, the magistrate judge ordered that her motions to proceed in forma pauperis, to appoint counsel, and for judgment be stricken. Hill thereafter filed a motion to recuse the magistrate judge, which the district court also ordered stricken. The district court dismissed Hill’s action and issued a final judgment closing her case.

On appeal, Hill does not challenge the basis for the district court’s dismissal of her action. Instead, she reasserts the allegations upon which her original civil rights action, filed in 2008, was based.

The dismissal of a suit for failure to comply with an earlier sanction order is reviewed for abuse of discretion.1 Because Hill fails to present any argument showing an ability to pursue a nonfrivolous and arguable legal claim for relief, her appeal does not present a legal issue arguable on its merits and is frivolous.2

APPEAL DISMISSED.3

*

 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.

1

*.See Gelabert v. Lynaugh,*894 F.2d 746, 747-48 (5th Cir. 1990).

2

. *See Howard*v. *King, 707*F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983).

3

. 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
(logo)CWCapital

ASSETMANAGEMENT

 

 

**Annual Statement asto Compliance**

**For the Period ofJanuary 1, 2018 to July 5, 2018**

**and**

**For the Period ofJanuary 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018 with respect to the**

**WyvernwoodApartments Mortgage Loan and the**

**Residence InnMidtown East Mortgage Loan **

** **

** **

**JPMBB 2014-C23**

 

 

Inaccordance with Item 1123 of Regulation AB and with the requirements detailedin §11.09 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the “Agreement”) for theabove-mentioned CMBS pool, (the “CMBS Pool”), CWCapital Asset Management LLC(“CWCAM”), in its capacity as Special Servicer, is providing this Officer’sCertificate with respect to the following:

 

(A)      a review of CWCAM’s activities during the preceding calendar year or portionthereof (the “Reporting Period”) and of CWCAM’s performance under the Agreementhas been made under such officer’s supervision; and

 

(B)      to the best of such officer’s knowledge, based on such review, CWCAM hasfulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement in all material respectsthroughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

Shouldyou have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.  

 

Sincerely,

CWCapitalAsset Management LLC

 

 

/s/James P. Shevlin

JamesP. Shevlin

President/ChiefOperating Officer

 

 

7501Wisconsin Avenue | Suite 500 West | Bethesda, MD | 20814
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, each of the undersigned hereby certifies in his or her capacity as an officer of Valley Ridge Financial Corp. (the "Company") that the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of such period and the results of operations of the Company for such period.

| | /s/ Richard L. Edgar                                                                  
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Richard L. Edgar
President and Chief Executive Officer                                
| |                                                                                       
| |                                                                                       
| |                                                                                       
| | /s/ Michael E. McHugh                                                                 
| | Michael E. McHugh
Secretary and Treasurer (Principal Financial
and Accounting Officer)
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**


(18
      U.S.C. 1350)





The
      undersigned, Robert S. Herlin, President and Chief Executive Officer of Evolution
      Petroleum Corporation (the
      "Company"), certifies in connection with the filing with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission of the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the
      quarter ended September 30, 2006 (the "Report")") pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      to
      his knowledge, that:





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





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





IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
      13 th day of
      November, 2006.


/s
                  /
                  ROBERT S. HERLINRobert
                    S. Herlin
                  Chief
                    Executive Officer


A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to Evolution
      Petroleum Corporation and will
      be retained by Evolution
      Petroleum Corporation and
      furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
      The foregoing certificate is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
      Commission as an exhibit to this Form 10-QSB and shall not be considered filed
      as part of the Form 10-QSB.
# Official Journal C 219A/2010

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.CA2010.219.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 219A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5313 August 2010 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.CA2010.219.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 219A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5313 August 2010

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Corrigenda |
| 2010/C 219A/01 | Corrigendum to the notice of open competitions EPSO/AD/180-181-182/10 (OJ C 110 A, 29.4.2010) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

Corrigenda

Corrigenda

2010/C 219A/01

Corrigendum to the notice of open competitions EPSO/AD/180-181-182/10 (OJ C 110 A, 29.4.2010)

1

---

REVIEW OF COMPETITION C A OJs

Please find below the list of C A published during the present year.

Unless otherwise indicated, OJs are published in all language versions.

| 5 | (FR) |
| --- | --- |
| 9 | |
| 19 | (FR) |
| 23 | (DE/ES/PT) |
| 28 | |
| 48 | |
| 53 | |
| 56 | |
| 57 | |
| 60 | |
| 61 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 62 | |
| 64 | |
| 66 | (BG/RO) |
| 67 | (ES) |
| 70 | (PT) |
| 73 | (FI) |
| 74 | (SV) |
| 91 | |
| 95 | |
| 104 | |
| 110 | |
| 116 | (ET) |
| 119 | |
| 129 | (EL) |
| 137 | (LT/LV/MT) |
| 138 | (BG/CS/LT/PL/RO/SK) |
| 143 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 144 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 146 | (DA/FI/MT) |
| 147 | (FI) |
| 149 | (IT) |
| 150 | (BG/CS/LT/PL/RO/SK) |
| 151 | |
| 155 | |
| 156 | (PL) |
| 157 | |
| 163 | |
| 164 | |
| 171 | (IT) |
| 178 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 184 | |
| 188 | (DA/DE/EN/FR/SL) |
| 190 | |
| 191 | |
| 192 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 196 | (BG/EN/NL/RO/SL) |
| 201 | |
| 204 | (EN/FR) |
| 219 | |

5

(FR)

9

19

(FR)

23

(DE/ES/PT)

28

48

53

56

57

60

61

(DE/EN/FR)

62

64

66

(BG/RO)

67

(ES)

70

(PT)

73

(FI)

74

(SV)

91

95

104

110

116

(ET)

119

129

(EL)

137

(LT/LV/MT)

138

(BG/CS/LT/PL/RO/SK)

143

(DE/EN/FR)

144

(DE/EN/FR)

146

(DA/FI/MT)

147

(FI)

149

(IT)

150

(BG/CS/LT/PL/RO/SK)

151

155

156

(PL)

157

163

164

171

(IT)

178

(DE/EN/FR)

184

188

(DA/DE/EN/FR/SL)

190

191

192

(DE/EN/FR)

196

(BG/EN/NL/RO/SL)

201

204

(EN/FR)

219

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF**

**CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**OF PATINA OIL & GAS CORPORATION**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.ss.1350**

 

1. I, David J. Kornder, Chief Financial Officer of Patina Oil & Gas Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certify to the best of my knowledge that the accompanying report on Form 10-Q for the quarterlyperiod ending March 31, 2005 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Report”) by the Company fully complies with the requirements ofthat section. 

 

2. I further certify to the best of my knowledge that theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of the Company. 

 

 

The foregoing certification isbeing furnished solely pursuant to 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 is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosuredocument. 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906has been provided to Patina Oil & Gas Corporation and will be retained by Patina Oil & Gas Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### John T. WASHINGTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; Eugene P. Libby, D.O. A Professional Corporation, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-16031

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed December 29, 2017

John T. Washington, Pro Se

Shara L. Larson, Attorney, Zachariah Larson, Esquire, Matthew C. Zirzow, Esquire, Larson Zirzow & Kaplan, LLC, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

John T. Washington appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his medical malpractice action under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). *Ebner v. Fresh, Inc.,*838 F.3d 958, 962 (9th Cir. 2016). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record, *Thompson v. Paul,*547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.

Dismissal of Washington’s state law claims was proper because Washington’s action was filed more than one year after he discovered his claim, and Washington has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to either statutory or equitable tolling. *See*Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41A.097(2)-(3) (setting forth one-year limitation period after discovery of professional negligence claim and statutory tolling for concealment of evidence); *Copeland*v. *Desert Inn Hotel,*99 Nev. 823, 673 P.2d 490, 492 (1983) (listing non-exhaustive factors considered for equitable tolling).

Contrary to Washington’s contention, the United States was not properly served, *432and we do not consider the merits of Washington’s claims against the United States.

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal, *see Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009), or documents not presented to the district court, *see United States v. Elias,*921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).

AFFIRMED.

**

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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

YUNFANG CHEN,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 22

- 2004

Agency No.

A212

- 957

- 615

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 1 1 , 2024 **

Honolulu

, Hawai ‘ i

Before: CALLAHAN, HURWITZ, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges

.

Yunfang Chen , a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of a

decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing an appeal from an

order of an Immigration Judge (IJ) denying h er claims for asylum, withholding of

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

- 3.

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

# FILED

JUN 13 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 22

- 2004

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition.

When the BIA adopts the decision of the IJ and also provides its own

reasoning, we review both the BIA and IJ decisions. Aguilar Fermin v. Barr , 958

F.3d 887, 891 (9th Cir. 2020). We review the agency’s factual findings, including

adverse credibility determination s , for substantial evidence. Iman v. Barr , 972 F.3d

1058, 1064 (9th Cir. 2020). Under this “highly deferential” standard, the agency’s

factual findings are “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be

compelled to conclude to the contrary .” Salguero Sosa v. Garland , 55 F.4th 1213,

1217

– 18 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting Nasrallah v. Barr

, 590 U.S. 573 , 584 (2020)); 8

U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).

We agree with the BIA that s ubstantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding

that Chen ’s testimony was not credible. In affirming the adverse credibility

determination, the BIA cited the specific bases upon which the IJ relied, including

numerous inconsistencies and omissions in Chen’s testimony and documentation,

Chen’s prior visa fraud and lack of candor regarding the fraud

, the lack of

corroborating evidence , Chen’s inconsistent statements during her asylum

interview, and Chen’s lack of religious fervor, knowledge, interest, and devotion.

Once Chen ’s testimony is treated as noncredible, the remaining evidence does not

establish entitlement to asylum

, withholding of removal , or CAT relief

.3 22

- 2004

DENIED.