alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DANIAL GAFRE FITIWI,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General,

Respondent.

No. 22-67

Agency No.

A062-367-879

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 20, 2023**

San Francisco, California

Before: SCHROEDER, CALLAHAN, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

* 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

APR 25 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

Daniel Gafre Fitiwi, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review 

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal from the 

denial of his application for a “good faith marriage” waiver under 8 U.S.C.

§1186a(c)(4)(B). Under that statute, Petitioner had the burden of establishing 

eligibility for the waiver by showing his marriage was entered into in good 

faith. See Hammad v. Holder, 603 F.3d 536, 543 (9th Cir. 2010).

The denial was premised on numerous inconsistencies in the evidence

Petitioner presented, and on his explanations, which the Immigration Judge 

found to be implausible. Many of the inconsistencies concerned whether 

Petitioner considered the two children born during the marriage to be his 

biological children. There was also a notable lack of any family photographs 

with the children. The conclusion that Petitioner failed to establish he entered 

into his marriage in good faith is supported by substantial evidence. See Damon 

v. Ashcroft, 360 F.3d 1084, 1088 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating that whether a 

noncitizen entered into a marriage in good faith to be eligible for the waiver is 

an intrinsically fact-specific question that is reviewed under the substantial 

evidence standard). There is no evidence compelling a contrary finding.

Because the reasons for rejecting Petitioner’s explanations are clear, the 

Supreme Court’s recent decision in Garland v. Dai, 141 S.Ct. 1669 (2021), does 

not require remand. See id. at 1681. 

PETITION DENIED.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 1 D0 06 4 . HEATHER ANN COOPER v . GREGORY KEI LW I TZ

.

In t h i s d o m e s t i c rel at i o n s m at t er, t he tri al co u rt g ran t ed d efen d an t Greg o ry

Kei l wi t z’ s m ot i o n fo r a pro tect i v e o rd er on M a r c h 1 6

, 2 0 2 0. On J u l y 2 4

, 2 0 2 0

, t h e

co u rt i s s u ed a fi nal o rd er den y i n g p l ai n t iff Heat her Co o p er’ s p et i t i o n t o ch an g e t h e

n am es o f t h e p art i es ’ m i n o r ch i l d ren

. O n A u g us t 1 1

, 2 0 2 0

, t h e co u rt g ran t ed

Kei l wi t z’ s m ot i o n fo r O CGA § 9 -1 5 -1 4 (b ) at t o rn ey fees an d o rd ered Co o per t o p ay

Kei l wi t z’ s co u n s el $ 3

, 5 5 8 .0 8 i n at t o rn ey fees at t ri bu t ab l e t o t h i s li t ig at io n

. Co o p er

fi led t h i s ap p l i cat i o n f

o r d i s cret i o n ary rev i ew o n Sep tem ber 1 1, 20 2 0

, s eek i n g to

ap p eal al l t h ree t ri al co u rt o rd ers . W e l ack ju ri sd i ct i o n

.

An ap p l i cat i on fo r d i s cret i o n ary rev iew m u s t b e fi l ed wi t h i n 3 0 day s o f en t ry

o f t h e o rd er o r ju dg m en t t o b e ap p eal ed

. OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (d ). Th e req u irem en t s o f

OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 are ju ri s d i ct i o n al

, an d t hi s Co u rt can n o t accep t an ap pl i cat i o n fo r

ap p eal no t m ad e i n co m

pl ian ce t h erewi t h

. See Bo yl e v. St a te

, 1 90 Ga. Ap p

. 7 3 4

, 7 3 4

(3 8 0 SE2 d 5 7 ) (1 9 8 9)

. P r e t erm i t t i n g wh et her a ti m el y d i s cret i o n ary ap p l i cat i o n

fo l l o w i n g t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s Au g u s t 1 1 o rd er

– t he m o s t recen t o f t h e th ree o rd ers

Co o p er s eek s t o ap p eal

– wo u l d h av e au t h o ri zed ap p el lat e rev i ew o f al l t h ree o rd ers ,

h e r ap pl i cat io n was u n t im el y fi l ed 31 day s aft er en t ry o f th at o rd er. Co n s eq u en t l y , October 06, 2020C o o p er’ s ap p l i cat i on fo r d i scret i o n ary rev i ew i s h ereb y DISM ISSED fo r l ack o f

ju ri s d i ct i o n . See Bo

yl e , 1 90 Ga. Ap p . at 7 3 4

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e
, A t la n t a
,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i t n e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 10/06/2020
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-20777

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOHN TONY WASHINGTON, JR., 

also known as Benny Rue,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-98-CR-107-1

__________________________________________

May 24, 1999

Before POLITZ, BARKSDALE and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

John Tony Washington, Jr., was convicted of bank robbery, use of a firearm during a crime

of violence, and possession of a firearmby a convicted felon. On appeal, he argues that the trial court

erred in determining that the eyewitness identifications of him were not the result of unduly

suggestive procedures, that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence that he had 

used an alias when being questioned by police about an unrelated issue several months after the

robbery, and that the court abused its discret ion in failing to ask the jury panel about their views

concerning eyewitness testimony during voir dire.
2

We have reviewed the briefs and the record and hold that the district court did not err in

admitting the identification evidence because the photographic spreads and the lineup were not

impermissibly suggestive. Herrera v. Collins, 904 F.2d 944, 946 (5th Cir. 1990); Peters v. Whitley,

942 F.2d 937, 939 (5th Cir. 1991). The district court also did not abuse its discretion in admitting

the alias evidence under United States v. Kalish, 690 F.2d 1144 (5th Cir. 1982). Finally, we hold that

the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to question the members of the jury panel

about their views of eyewitnesstestimony, asthere was an absence of evidence that “prejudice might

have influenced the jury.” Rosales-Lopez v. United States, 451 U.S. 182, 191 (1981)(racial and

ethnic prejudice).

AFFIRMED.
DLM 4000.25, Volume 4

1

DIC FU1/FU2/GU1/GU2 FORMAT

PROGRESS PAYMENT

Field Legend Position(s) Entry and Instructions

DI Code 1-3 Enter 

FU1 or GU1 for progress payments

FU2 or GU2 for progress payment 

recoupments.

Billing Office (RI Code) 4-6 Enter the RI code of the billing office.

Supplemental 

Information

7-29 Enter supplemental information as required by 

the order or agreement authorized progress 

payment billings by interfund.

Otherwise, leave blank

Document Number 30-43 Enter the requisition document number.

Blank 44 Leave blank.

Supplementary Address 45-50 Perpetuate from the requisition or enter as 

required by the purchase order.

Signal Code 51 Perpetuate from the MILSTRIP requisition or 

as required by the purchase order.

Fund Code 52-53 Perpetuate from the MILSTRIP requisition or 

as required by the purchase order.

Bill Number 54-58 Enter the bill number from SBR supported by 

this billing line.

Blank 59-61 Leave blank.

Day of Year 62-64 Enter the day of the year the progress payment 

was billed or recouped.

Amount 65-73 Enter the amount of the progress billing.

Blank 74-80 Leave blank.
Exhibit 21

                               SUBSIDIARIES OF FGI


FARMERS GROUP, INC., A NEVADA CORPORATION, DOING BUSINESS AS FARMERS
  UNDERWRITERS ASSOCIATION


         Truck Underwriters Association, a California corporation

         Fire Underwriters Association, a California corporation

         F.I.G. Holding Company, a California corporation  (1)

         Farmers New World Life Insurance Company, a Washington corporation
 
         The Ohio State Life Insurance Company, an Ohio corporation

         Investors Guaranty Life Insurance Company, a California corporation

         FIG Leasing Co., Inc., a California corporation  (2)

         Prematic Service Corporation, a California corporation  (3)

         Prematic Service Corporation, a Nevada corporation  (4)

         Farmers Group Capital, a Delaware statutory business trust

         Farmers Group Capital II, a Delaware statutory business trust

         Farmers Investment Management & Research, a California corportaion

         Farmers Investment Management & Research, a Nevada corportion

         Farmers Underwriters Association, a California corporation (inactive)

         F.I.G. Travel, a California corporation (inactive)

______________________________________

(1)    Truck Underwriters Association and Fire Underwriters Association own
       30.0% and 70.0%, respectively, of the equity of F.I.G. Holding Company.

(2)    FGI, Truck Underwriters Association and Fire Underwriters Association 
       own 95.2%, 3.1% and 1.7%, respectively, of the equity of FIG Leasing
       Co., Inc.

(3)    FGI, Truck Underwriters Association and Fire Underwriters Association 
       own 38.0%, 53.0% and 9.0%, respectively, of the equity of Prematic 
       Service Corporation, a California corporation.

(4)    Prematic Service Corporation, a California corporation, owns 100.0% 
       of the equity of Prematic Service Corporation, a Nevada corporation.
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

 Docket Number: FAA-2013-0364

 Directorate Identifier: 2011NM114AD

747-53-2253, R3 --- 3/24/94

747-53-2253, R1 --- 1/25/90

747-53-2253 --- 12/14/84

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 136 (Thursday, July 16, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 38404]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18875]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Office of the Secretary


Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB 
Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the 
Secretary publishes a list of information collections it has submitted 
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance in 
compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 
35) and 5 CFR 1320.5. The following are those information collections 
recently submitted to OMB.
    Proposed Projects 1. Analysis of Employer Group Long-Term Care 
Insurance--New--The Office of Assistant Secretary for Planning and 
Evaluation is planning to survey employers offering group long-term 
care insurance in order to identify current products and best practices 
in the employer long-term care insurance market.
    Respondents: State or local governments, Businesses or other for-
profit--Burden Information for Insurance Companies.
    Number of Respondents: 11.
    Burden per Response: 170 minutes.
    Total Burden for Insurance Companies: 31 hours--Burden Information 
for Employers.
    Number of Respondents: 125.
    Average Burden per Response: 85 minutes.
    Total Burden for Employers: 177 hours.
    Total Burden: 208 hours.
    OMB Desk Officer: Allison Eydt.
    Copies of the information collection packages listed above can be 
obtained by calling the OS Reports Clearance Officer on (202) 690-6207. 
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent directly to the OMB desk officer designated 
above at the following address: Human Resources and Housing Branch, 
Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 
10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503.
    Comments may also be sent to Cynthia Agens Bauer, OS Reports 
Clearance Officer, Room 503H, Humphrey Building, 200 Independence 
Avenue S.W., Washington, DC 20201. Written comments should be received 
within 30 days of this notice.

    Dated: July 8, 1998.
Dennis P. Williams,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Budget.
[FR Doc. 98-18875 Filed 7-5-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4150-04-M
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, May 21, 2019. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, May 21, 2019 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A19D0452. KING PETRO, INC. et al. v. ULTRA GROUP OF COMPANIES, INC. et al. .
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 2018CV300090
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed

September 4 , 2014.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 14

- 00698

- CR

IN RE FREDDRICK SMITH , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 351st District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 889,765

- C



### MEMORANDUM OPINION
On August 25, 2014, relator Freddrick Smith filed a petition for writ of

m andamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this Court to compel the
Honorable Mark Kent Ellis , presiding judge of the 351st District Court of Harris County , to take action on his pending post

- conviction application for writ of habeas corpus

.2

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has exclusive jurisdiction in final post

- conviction habeas corpus proceedings. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07 (West Supp. 2014 ); Padieu v. Court of Appeals of Tex., Fifth Dist. , 392 S.W.3d 115, 11 7 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding). An intermediate appellate court has no authority to compel a trial court to rule on matters related to a petition for writ of habeas corpus. See In re McAfee , 53 S.W.3d 715, 718 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding) (“Should an applicant find it necessary to complain about an action or inaction of the convicting court, the applicant may seek mandamus relief from the Court of Criminal Appeals.”). Therefore, we have no jurisdiction over relator’ s request for relief. Accordingly, we dismiss relator’s petition for writ of mandamus for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CUR IAM
Panel Consists of Justices Boyce, Jamison, and Donovan. Do Not Publish

— Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
No. 11-5145.

#### Jermaine Lenard Moss, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 892, 132 S. Ct. 274,

181 L. Ed. 2d 162,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5495.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
No. 11-5647.

#### Tyrone Weaver, Petitioner v. Massachusetts.

565 U.S. 917, 132 S. Ct. 337,

181 L. Ed. 2d 210,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6000.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts denied.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 127 (Thursday, July 2, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36212-36213]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17688]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board
[Order No. 983]


Grant of Authority; Establishment of a Foreign-Trade Zone Dothan, 
Alabama

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 
18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board 
(the Board) adopts the following Order:

[[Page 36213]]

    Whereas, by an Act of Congress approved June 18, 1934, an Act ``To 
provide for the establishment of foreign-trade zones in ports of entry 
of the United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, and 
for other purposes,'' as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u) (the Act), the 
Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) is authorized to grant to 
qualified corporations the privilege of establishing foreign-trade 
zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs ports of entry;
    Whereas, the Dothan-Houston County Foreign Trade Zone, Inc. (the 
Grantee), an Alabama non-profit corporation, has made application to 
the Board (FTZ Docket 31-97, 62 FR 19545, 4-22-97), requesting the 
establishment of a foreign-trade zone at sites in the Dothan (Houston/
Dale Counties), Alabama area, adjacent to the Panama City, Florida 
Customs port of entry;
    Whereas, notice inviting public comment has been given in the 
Federal Register; and,
    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the 
examiner's report and finds that the requirements of the Act and the 
Board's regulations are satisfied, and that approval of the application 
is in the public interest;
    Now, therefore, the Board hereby grants to the Grantee the 
privilege of establishing a foreign-trade zone, designated on the 
records of the Board as Foreign-Trade Zone No. 233, at the sites 
described in the application, subject to the Act and the Board's 
regulations, including Section 400.28.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 23rd day of June 1998.

Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
William M. Daley,
Secretary of Commerce, Chairman and Executive Officer.

    Attest:
Dennis Puccinelli,
Acting Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-17688 Filed 7-1-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
`[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2466 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.2466

                       One Hundred Third Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America


                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
 the twenty-fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-
                                  four


                                 An Act

  
 
  To amend the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to manage the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve more effectively, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be 
cited as the ``Energy Policy and Conservation Act Amendments Act of 
1994''.

                TITLE I--ENERGY POLICY AND CONSERVATION

SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

    This title may be cited as the ``Energy Policy and Conservation Act 
Amendments of 1994''.

SEC. 102. TITLE I AMENDMENTS.

    Part D of title I of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act is 
amended in section 181 (42 U.S.C. 6251), by striking ``September 30, 
1994'' each time it appears and inserting ``June 30, 1996''.

SEC. 103. TITLE II AMENDMENTS.

    Part D of title II of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act is 
amended in section 281 (42 U.S.C. 6285), by striking ``September 30, 
1994'' each time it appears and inserting ``June 30, 1996''.







                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.







                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.`
----

 Exhibit 32.2 

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

 Solely for the purposes of complying with, and the extent  required by 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, the undersigned certifies, in his capacity as the Chief Financial  Officer of VIPC Communications, Inc., that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly  Report of the company on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2003, fully  complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange  Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the report fairly presents,  in all material respects, the company’s financial condition and results  of operations. 

October 10, 2003

/s/ Michael Harrop                                      Michael Harrop, Chief Financial Officer 

----
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-10674

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FRANCISCO JAVIER MADRIZ-DIAZ, also known as Francisco José

Madriz-Diaz, also known as Rolando,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:97-CR-258-1-T

- - - - - - - - - -

April 19, 1999

Before JONES, SMITH, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Court-appointed counsel for Francisco Javier Madriz-Diaz,

also known as Francisco José Madriz-Diaz, also known as Rolando,

has filed a motion and brief as required by Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967). Madriz-Diaz has not filed a response to

counsel’s motion. Our independent review of counsel’s brief and

the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, the

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from 
No. 

-2-

further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

We hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Form 10-KSB of Reliability Incorporated (the Issuer) for the annual period ended
December 31, 2006 (the Annual Report):



| | 1. | 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                     |  |  |  |                                                               
|---------------------------------------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Larry Edwards                                    |  |  |  | /s/ James M. Harwell                                          
|Larry Edwards Chief Executive Officer April 13, 2007 |  |  |  | James M. Harwell Acting Chief Financial
Officer April 13, 2007