alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Kelsey, Petty and Senior Judge Bumgardner

DEVON TURNER

MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 2605-11-1 PER CURIAM

JUNE 26, 2012

CITY OF HAMPTON DEPARTMENT

 OF SOCIAL SERVICES

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF HAMPTON

Wilford Taylor, Jr., Judge

(Christina E. James; Kevin P. Shea & Associate, on brief), for 

appellant. Appellant submitting on brief.

(Everett L. Bensten, Assistant City Attorney; Douglas J. Walter, 

Guardian ad litem for the minor children, on brief), for appellee. 

Appellee and Guardian ad litem submitting on brief.

On November 30, 2011, the trial court entered a permanency planning order placing custody 

of the minor children of Devon Turner, mother, with the maternal grandparents of the children and 

terminating the custody rights of mother. On appeal, mother argues the trial court erred in 

transferring custody of the children. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we 

conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

Mother did not comply with Rule 5A:20(e) because her opening brief does not contain any 

principles of law or citation to legal authorities to fully develop her argument that the trial court 

erred. Rule 5A:20(e) mandates that an appellant’s opening brief shall contain “the argument 

(including principles of law and authorities) relating to each assignment of error.” “‘Statements 

unsupported by argument, authority, or citations to the record do not permit appellate 

 * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
- 2 -

consideration.’” Parks v. Parks, 52 Va. App. 663, 664, 666 S.E.2d 547, 548 (2008) (quoting Cirrito 

v. Cirrito, 44 Va. App. 287, 302 n.7, 605 S.E.2d 268, 275 n.7 (2004)).

Mother has the burden of showing that reversible error was committed. See Lutes v. 

Alexander, 14 Va. App. 1075, 1077, 421 S.E.2d 857, 859 (1992). The Supreme Court has 

concluded “that when a party’s ‘failure to strictly adhere to the requirements of Rule 5A:20(e)’ is 

significant, ‘the Court of Appeals may . . . treat a question presented as waived.’” Parks, 52 

Va. App. at 664, 666 S.E.2d at 548 (quoting Jay v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 510, 520, 659 S.E.2d 

311, 317 (2008)). We find mother’s failure to comply with Rule 5A:20(e) is significant, therefore,

we will not consider her assignment of error. See Fadness v. Fadness, 52 Va. App. 833, 851, 667 

S.E.2d 857, 866 (2008) (“If the parties believed that the circuit court erred, it was their duty to 

present that error to [the Court of Appeals] with legal authority to support their contention.”).

For the foregoing reason, the trial court’s ruling is affirmed.

Affirmed.
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 Powerhouse Technologies Group, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2005, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
David R. Wells, Vice President Finance Operations (Principal Financial and
Accounting Officer) 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, that to my
knowledge:

(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 result of operations of the Company.

Date: August 15, 2005

/s/ David R. Wells
-------------------------
David R. Wells
Vice President, Finance
Principal Financial and Accounting Officer
#### Sonia MOLINA-ALVARADO, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-72199

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted November 15, 2017 *

Filed November 20, 2017

Miguel Angel Olano, Miguel Olano, Attorney at Law, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner

Jesse Lloyd Busen, Trial Attorney, OIL, Anthony Cardozo Payne, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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, Raya Jarawan, Esquire, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, 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 **

Sonia Molina-Alvarado, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. *Mohammed v. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Molina-Alvarado’s motion to reopen as untimely where it was filed more than nineteen years after the filing deadline. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1), (4)(iii)(A)(l) (an order of deportation entered in absentia may only be rescinded upon a motion to reopen filed within 180 days of the order if the alien demonstrates exceptional circumstances). Additionally, Molina-Alvarado did not show that notice was improper where she was properly served with the order to show cause and notice of hearing, and was given written notice and was read in her native language the consequences of failing to appear. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(2) (1993) (requiring written notice of the time and place of proceedings, as well as written notice of the consequences of failing to appear).

Contrary to Molina-Alvarado’s contention, the BIA’s decision in *Matter of M-S-,*22 I. & N. Dec. 349 (BIA 1998), does not provide an independent basis for untimely reopening of her deportation proceedings. *See id.*at 357 (motion to reopen in absen-tia proceeding to apply for new relief is subject to timeliness requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)).

Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider Molina-Alvarado’s request for remand for purposes of seeking prosecutorial discretion. *See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder,*688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (order).

*547PETITION 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.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 61 (Wednesday, March 30, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18380-18381]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06710]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs

[223A2100DD/AAKC001030/A0A501010.999900]


Indian Energy Service Center; Approval of Tribal Energy 
Development Organization Certification for the Red Lake Band of 
Chippewa Indians Nation

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice advises the public that the Department of the 
Interior (DOI) approved a Tribal Energy Development Organization (TEDO) 
Certification for Twenty-First Century Tribal Energy, Inc, which is a 
Tribally owned corporation of Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians (Red 
Lake).

DATES: The certification takes effect on March 17, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Johnna Blackhair, Deputy Bureau 
Director, Office of Trust Services, Washington DC 20240, (202) 809-
2069.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A TEDO Certification allows the Tribe to 
enter into a lease or business agreement with the TEDO under 25 U.S.C. 
3504(a)(2) or a right-of-way with the TEDO under 25 U.S.C. 
3504(b)(2)(B) without Secretarial review and without a TERA. Red Lake's 
TEDO is organized under the laws of the Tribe and subject to the 
Tribe's jurisdiction, laws, and authority. The majority of the interest 
in the TEDO is owned and controlled by the Tribe (or the Tribe and one 
or more other Tribes) the Tribal land of which is being developed. The 
TEDO's organizing

[[Page 18381]]

document requires the Tribe with jurisdiction over the land to 
maintain, at all times, the controlling interest in the TEDO. The 
TEDO's organizing document requires the Tribe to own and control, at 
all times, a majority of the interest in the TEDO. The certification is 
issued under 25 U.S.C. 3504(h) and nothing in the certification waives 
the sovereign immunity of the Tribe. This is to certify that the Red 
Lake's Tribally owned company Twenty-First Century Tribal Energy, Inc., 
is certified as a TEDO. The Certification is approved.

Bryan Newland,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2022-06710 Filed 3-29-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4337-15-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jorge Martin Martinez MENDOZA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-11382 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(November 30, 2017)

Holly Lynn Gershow, Cherie Krigsman, Linda Julin McNamara, Arthur Lee Bentley, III, James C. Preston, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Valarie Linnen, Valarie Linnen, Esq, Atlantic Beach, FL, for Defendant-Appellant

Before MARCUS, ROSENBAUM and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The Government’s motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant to the appeal waiver in Appellant’s plea agreement is GRANTED. *See United States v. Bushert,*997 F.2d 1343, 1350-51 (11th Cir. 1993) (sentence appeal waiver will be enforced if it was made knowingly and voluntarily).
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Octavius HENDERSON, a.k.a. Octavious Henderson, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-10706 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(December 6, 2017)

Germaine Seider, Arthur Lee Bentley, III, Shauna S. Hale, James A. Muench, U.S, Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Before MARTIN, JILL PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

William Sansone, appointed counsel for Octavius Henderson in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion *634to withdraw is GRANTED, and Henderson’s conviction and sentence are

AFFIRMED.
#### Enio MAZARIEGOS-CHOJOLAN Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General of the United States Respondent

No. 16-4478

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: December 14, 2017

Filed: December 20, 2017

Lazara Pittman, Iowa City, IA, for Petitioner

Karen Yolanda Drummond, Carl H. McIntyre, John Frederick Stanton, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration' Litigation, Scott Michael Marconda, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before BENTON, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

An immigration judge denied the request of Guatemalan citizen Enio Mazarie-gos-Chojolan for special-rule cancellation of removal under section 203 of the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central America Relief Act of 1997 (NACARA) because Ma-zariegos-Chojolan failed to register for benefits under the settlement agreement in American Baptist Churches v. Thornburgh, (“ABC”), 760 F.Supp. 796 (N.D. Cal. 1991) (approving a settlement that required eligible Guatemalans to notify the INS in writing by December 31, 1991, of their intent to receive the agreement’s benefits). The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed Mazariegos-Chojolan’s appeal from this decision, and he now petitions this Court for review.

Although Mazariegos-Chojolan couches much of his argument in legal terms, the disposition of his claim depends upon the critical factual determination whether he registered for ABC benefits in a timely fashion. See Manani v. Filip, 552 F.3d 894, 900 n.3 (8th Cir. 2009) (noting that an alien’s recitation of “due process” and legal precedent in her brief “does not convert her attack on the BIA’s exercise of discretion into a colorable constitutional” or legal claim over which this Court would have jurisdiction). Mazariegos-Chojolan’s NA-CARA claim is not properly before this Court because the agency denied relief based on his failure to register for ABC benefits in a timely fashion. See Molina Jerez v. Holder, 625 F.3d 1058, 1069 (8th Cir. 2010) (recognizing that whether an alien “registered for *ABC*benefits in a timely manner is a purely factual issue over which this court lacks jurisdiction”). The petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 12

                       LORAL SPACE & COMMUNICATIONS LTD.

          COMPUTATION OF DEFICIENCY OF EARNINGS TO COVER FIXED CHARGES
                                 (IN THOUSANDS)
                                  (UNAUDITED)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                                                    JUNE 30,
                                                              --------------------
                                                                1999        1998
                                                              --------    --------
<S>                                                           <C>         <C>
Loss before income taxes, equity in net loss of affiliates
  and minority interest.....................................  $ (7,348)   $(23,371)
Plus fixed charges:
  Interest expense..........................................    82,380      43,499
  Interest component of rent expense(1).....................     2,676       2,127
Less: capitalized interest, net of amortization.............   (40,558)    (20,222)
                                                              --------    --------
Earnings available to cover fixed charges...................  $ 37,150    $  2,033
                                                              ========    ========
Fixed charges(2)............................................  $108,207    $ 78,926
                                                              ========    ========
Deficiency of earnings to cover fixed charges...............  $ 71,057    $ 76,893
                                                              ========    ========
</TABLE>

---------------
(1) The interest component of rent expense is deemed to be approximately 25% of
    total rent expense.

(2) Fixed charges include preferred dividends as adjusted for the Company's
    effective tax rate.
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 Amendment No. 1 to
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Emerald Dairy Inc. (the “Company”) for the
period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Shu Kaneko, Chief Financial
Officer and Secretary 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,
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 result of operations of the Company.





Date:  January 30, 2009By:
                    /s/
      Shu KanekoName:  Shu KanekoTitle:  Chief
      Financial Officer and Secretary (Principal Financial and Accounting
      Officer)
Exhibit 32.1

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

I, George T. Shaheen, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Siebel
Systems, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the
information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Siebel Systems, Inc.

In Witness Whereof, the undersigned has set his hand hereto as of the 6th day
of May 2005.



|/s/ George T. Shaheen
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------



I, Kenneth A. Goldman, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Siebel Systems, Inc. on
Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in
such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Siebel Systems, Inc.

In Witness Whereof, the undersigned has set his hand hereto as of the 6th day
of May 2005.



|/s/ Kenneth A. Goldman
Senior Vice President, Finance and
Administration and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of
Siebel Systems, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any
general incorporation language contained in such filing.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, 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 the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.

---
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed 

September 3, 2015.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-15-00691-CV

E & J TRANSPORTATION, INC., Appellant

V.

HELLENIC LOGISTIC, LLC, ELENI VARVOUTIS A/K/A ELENI DRIER 

A/K/A ANNA HELENA DRIER AND SCOTT A. DRIER, Appellees

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 1

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1049452

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a judgment signed May 12, 2015. On August 27, 

2015, appellant filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. The 

motion is granted. 

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Christopher and Donovan.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           3,878
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,739
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,298
<INVENTORY>                                      6,188
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                29,838
<PP&E>                                           5,936
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,506
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  37,290
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,517
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,445
<OTHER-SE>                                       (115)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    37,290
<SALES>                                         13,360
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,360
<CGS>                                            5,370
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,370
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,709
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (177)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,896)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (683)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,214)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,214)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.21)
        

</TABLE>
No. 11-9734.

#### Starr *v.*Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Robert MOORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DITECH FINANCIAL LLC; Bank of New York Mellon, FKA Bank of New York, as Trustee for the Certificate Holders CWMBS, Inc. CHL Mortgage Pass-Through Trust 2005-14, Mortgage Pass Through Certificates, Series 2005-14, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-16317

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted January 16, 2018 *

Filed January 23, 2018

Robert Moore, Pro Se

Michael S. Kelley, Attorney, Wright, Finlay *&*Zak, LLP, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Robert Moore appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his diversity action alleging a wrongful foreclosure claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). *Doe v. Abbott Labs.,*571 F.3d 930, 933 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Moore’s wrongful - foreclosure claim because Moore did not allege facts sufficient to show that he was not in default on his loan, and that defendants have not foreclosed on Moore’s home. *See In re Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc.,*754 F.3d 772, 785 (9th Cir. 2014) (“Nevada law requires that a trustor or mortgagor show a lack of default in order to proceed with a wrongful foreclosure claim.”); *Collins v. Union Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n,*99 Nev. 284, 662 P.2d 610, 623 (1983) (wrongful foreclosure claim requires allegations that a lender exercised the power of sale and foreclosed upon property when no failure of performance existed on the part of the borrower).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

**

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