alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 20-2726

___________________________

Tobias Zuniga-Padron

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner

v.

Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States1

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent

 ____________

Petition for Review of an Order of the

 Board of Immigration Appeals

 ____________

 Submitted: March 11, 2021

Filed: March 18, 2021

[Unpublished]

____________

Before KELLY, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

1Attorney General Garland is substituted for his predecessor pursuant to

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c).
Tobias Zuniga-Padron, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of

an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which upheld an immigration

judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen based on the alleged ineffective

assistance of counsel.

We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of the agency’s broad

discretion, recognizing that motions to reopen are viewed with disfavor. See Kucana

v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233, 242 (2010); INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 107 (1988);

Caballero-Martinez v. Barr, 920 F.3d 543, 549 (8th Cir. 2019). After careful review,

we conclude that, even assuming counsel’s performance was deficient, the BIA acted

within its discretion when it determined Zuniga-Padron did not demonstrate the

requisite prejudice because he failed to identify any particular evidence or set forth

the legal or factual basis for a new or supplemental claim. See 8 U.S.C. §

1229a(c)(7)(B); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(3); Ortiz-Puentes v. Holder, 662 F.3d 481, 485

(8th Cir. 2011) (concluding that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding

petitioners failed to show the requisite prejudice when they did not show what

additional evidence witness would have offered or otherwise proffer evidence to

support claim); Obleshchenko v. Ashcroft, 392 F.3d 970, 972-73 (8th Cir. 2004)

(concluding that petitioners failed to demonstrate prejudice when they argued

competent counsel would have submitted corroborating evidence but then failed to

file relevant corroborating documents). 

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 

______________________________

-2-
STATE of Louisiana v. Otis BEDWELL

NO. 2018-KH-0860

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

January 18, 2019

Denied.
H. Res. 670 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

July 17, 2014. 

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 

be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4719) to 

amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend and expand the charitable deduction for contributions of 

food inventory. All points of order against consideration of 

the bill are waived. In lieu of the amendment in the nature 

of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Ways and 

Means now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature 

of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee 

Print 113–51 shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as 

amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order 

against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The 

previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, 

as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final 

passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 

debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and rank-
2 

•HRES 670 EH 

ing minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; 

and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
| 1.   | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2013 of MobileSmith, 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; |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated: April 30, 2014 | By:    | /s/ Gleb Mikhailov      |   |
|-----------------------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|                  |   | Gleb Mikhailov          |   |
|                  |   | Chief Financial Officer |   |
|                  |   |                    |   |
Barbara Ann KELLY, Appellant, v. SUNTRUST BANK, et al., Appellee.

No. 1D18-0222

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 5, 2019

Barbara Ann Kelly, pro se, Appellant.

Amelia Hallenberg Beard of McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce, LLC, Orlando, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

Appellant's motion for reinstatement filed on December 7, 2018, in case number 1D18-0222, is granted, and the appeal in case number 1D18-0222 is hereby reinstated.

Case number 1D18-0222 is treated as an appeal from the final judgment of foreclosure, rendered by the lower tribunal's December 14, 2017, Order Denying Defendant Barbara Kelly's Motion to Vacate Final Judgment. On the Court's own motion, the appeal in case number 1D18-0220 is dismissed as duplicative of the appeal in case number 1D18-0222. Review of the order in case number 1D18-0220 shall proceed in case number 1D18-0222.

Appellant's request to consolidate the two appeals, contained within the foregoing motion, is denied as moot.

Wolf, Lewis, and Wetherell, JJ., concur.
Table of Contents

 

Exhibit 8.1 

MATERIAL SUBSIDIARIES 

Our operations are conducted principally by Companhia de Bebidas das Américas – AmBev (“Ambev”), and, in the case of our HILA-ex, Latin America South and Canadian operations, by direct and indirect subsidiaries of Ambev. The following is a list of the significant companies that Ambev controlled, either directly or indirectly, as of December 31, 2010: 

▪Ambev owns 100% of Labatt Holding A/S (incorporated in Denmark) which owns 100% of Labatt Brewing Co. Ltd. (incorporated in Canada). These entities explore the production of beer in Canada. 

▪Ambev owns approximately 99% of economic and voting interest in Quilmes International (Bermuda) Ltd. (“QIB”). QIB, through its subsidiaries, produces and sells beer and soft drinks in Argentina and other South American countries. 

▪Arosuco Aromas e Sucos Ltda. (“Arosuco”) (incorporated in Brazil). Arosuco produces concentrates for our soft drinks and crowns. Ambev controls 100% of the voting and total equity of this entity. 

▪Eagle Distribuidora de Bebidas S.A. (incorporated in Brazil). Ambev controls 100% of the voting and total equity of this entity. 

▪Jalua Spain S.L (incorporated in Spain). Ambev controls 100% of the voting and total equity of this entity. 

▪Monthiers S.A. (incorporated in Uruguay). Ambev controls 100% of the voting and total equity of this entity. 

▪Ambev Brasil Bebidas Ltda. (“Ambev Brasil”) (incorporated in Brazil). Ambev controls 100% of the voting and total equity of this entity. Ambev Brasil produces and sells beer and soft drinks in Brazil.

 

 

8.1-1

----
Barbara Ann KELLY, Appellant, v. SUNTRUST BANK, et al., Appellee.

No. 1D18-0220

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 5, 2019

Barbara Ann Kelly, pro se, Appellant.

Amelia Hallenberg Beard of McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce, LLC, Orlando, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

Appellant's motion for reinstatement filed on December 7, 2018, in case number 1D18-0222, is granted, and the appeal in case number 1D18-0222 is hereby reinstated.

Case number 1D18-0222 is treated as an appeal from the final judgment of foreclosure, rendered by the lower tribunal's December 14, 2017, Order Denying Defendant Barbara Kelly's Motion to Vacate Final Judgment. On the Court's own motion, the appeal in case number 1D18-0220 is dismissed as duplicative of the appeal in case number 1D18-0222. Review of the order in case number 1D18-0220 shall proceed in case number 1D18-0222.

Appellant's request to consolidate the two appeals, contained within the foregoing motion, is denied as moot.

Wolf, Lewis, and Wetherell, JJ., concur.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

December 28, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 134116(29) Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 134116 COA: 274116 Wayne CC: 94-009537-01 CONRAD ERIC SANDERS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s September 10, 2007 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it doe s not appear that the order was entered erroneously.

d1217 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 28, 2007

Clerk
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

WILLIE WATTS, 

Appellant, 

v. Case No. 5D21-2837

LT Case No. 1980-CF-564

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee. 

________________________________/ 

Decision filed May 10, 2022

3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court

for St. Johns County, 

R. Lee Smith, Judge.

Willie Watts, Daytona Beach, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General,

Tallahassee, and Kellie A. Nielan, 

Assistant Attorney General, Daytona

Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM. 

AFFIRMED. 

LAMBERT, C.J., WALLIS and NARDELLA, JJ., concur.
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 249 (Monday, December 30, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 106441]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-31033]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[RTID 0648-XE513]

Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Pacific Council) Ad-
hoc Sacramento River Fall Chinook (SRFC) Workgroup will hold a two-day 
online meeting in January, 2025.

DATES: The online meeting will be held on Wednesday, January 29, 2025 
and Thursday, January 30, 2025, daily from 9 a.m. until 3 p.m., Pacific 
Time or until business for the day concludes.

ADDRESSES: This meeting will be held online. Specific meeting 
information, including directions on how to join the meeting and system 
requirements will be provided in the meeting announcement on the 
Pacific Council's website (see www.pcouncil.org). You may send an email 
to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt ([email protected]) or contact him at 
(503) 820-2412 for technical assistance.
    Council address: Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE 
Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220-1384.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Angela Forristall, Staff Officer, 
Pacific Council; telephone: (503) 820-2419.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The primary purpose of the meetings is to 
address guidance received from the Pacific Council at their November 
2024 meeting. The Workgroup may discuss and continue to develop new or 
updated tools for SRFC management for Pacific Council consideration. 
Additional discussions may include, but are not limited to, future 
meetings, workload planning, and upcoming Pacific Council agenda items.
    Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda 
may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action 
during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues 
specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after 
publication of this document that require emergency action under 
section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to 
take final action to address the emergency.

 Special Accommodations

    Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids 
should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt 
([email protected]; (503) 820-2412) at least 10 days prior to 
the meeting date.
    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: December 20, 2024.
Rey Israel Marquez,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National 
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2024-31033 Filed 12-27-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
```
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      (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)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;(c)
    
    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(d)
    
    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 (the registered
fourth quarter in the case of an Annual Report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and
  (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: February 28, 2007
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Mark A HeggestadMark A HeggestadTitle: Executive Vice President and

          Chief Financial Officer
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Floods

Filters

              - science_science(10)
              - products_maps(2)
              - products_publications(77)
              - documents_file(1)
              - documents_file-149220(1)
              - (-)news_news-149245(1)
              - news_news-149248(1)
              - news_news-149250(1)
              - news_other_news(1)
              - connect_staff_profiles(2)

## By Location

              - alaska(1)
              - arizona(4)
              - arkansas(2)
              - california(5)
              - colorado(6)
              - connecticut(1)
              - delaware(1)
              - florida(3)
              - georgia(3)
              - guam(1)
              - hawaii(2)
              - idaho(2)
              - (-)illinois(1)
              - indiana(3)
              - iowa(7)
              - kansas(1)
              - louisiana(1)
              - maine(2)
              - massachusetts(1)
              - michigan(1)
              - minnesota(3)
              - missouri(5)
              - montana(2)
              - nebraska(2)
              - nevada(2)
              - new hampshire(2)
              - new jersey(2)
              - new mexico(2)
              - new york(2)
              - north carolina(3)
              - north dakota(4)
              - ohio(3)
              - oklahoma(4)
              - oregon(3)
              - pennsylvania(1)
              - puerto rico(1)
              - rhode island(1)
              - south carolina(5)
              - south dakota(7)
              - texas(12)
              - u.s. virgin islands(1)
              - utah(1)
              - vermont(1)
              - virginia(2)
              - washington(3)
              - west virginia(1)
              - wyoming(1)

## By Year

State News Release        December 28, 2015        USGS Measures Flooding in Illinois
IV 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 571 

Recognizing the roles and contributions of America’s teachers to building 

and enhancing the Nation’s civic, cultural, and economic well-being. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 6, 2014 

Mr. GRAVES of Missouri (for himself, Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. 

VARGAS, Mr. MEEHAN, Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania, Mr. JOLLY, Mr. 

HANNA, Mr. CHABOT, Ms. TITUS, Ms. MOORE, Mr. SCHIFF, Mr. WHITFIELD, Mr. WOLF, Mrs. BLACK, Mrs. WALORSKI, Mr. TONKO, Mr. 

MCGOVERN, Mr. DEUTCH, Mr. PRICE of North Carolina, Mr. CONNOLLY, 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO, Mr. BENISHEK, Mr. TERRY, Mrs. MILLER of Michigan, 

Mr. SABLAN, Mr. ROE of Tennessee, Mr. HOLT, Mr. MILLER of Florida, 

Mr. GRIMM, Mr. REED, Mr. LOEBSACK, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mr. GIBSON, Mr. MARINO, Mr. DIAZ-BALART, and Ms. JENKINS) submitted the 

following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Education 

and the Workforce 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the roles and contributions of America’s teachers 

to building and enhancing the Nation’s civic, cultural, 

and economic well-being. 

Whereas education and knowledge are the foundation of 

America’s current and future strength; 

Whereas teachers and other education staff have earned and 

deserve the respect of their students and communities for 

their selfless dedication to community service and the future of our Nation’s children; 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 571 IH 

Whereas the purpose of ‘‘National Teacher Day’’, held on 

May 6, 2014, is to raise public awareness of the 

unquantifiable contributions of teachers and to promote 

greater respect and understanding for the teaching profession; and 

Whereas students, schools, communities, and a number of organizations representing educators are hosting teacher 

appreciation events in recognition of ‘‘National Teacher 

Day’’: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives thanks 

2 and promotes the profession of teaching by encouraging 

3 students, parents, school administrators, and public offi4 cials to participate in teacher appreciation events during 

5 ‘‘National Teacher Day’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6347

JAMES A. BUTLER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RAYMOND H. HITE,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.

(CA-96-67-2)

Submitted: August 15, 1996 Decided: August 20, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James A. Butler, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his

motion for an extension of time to file a motion pursuant to Fed.

R. Civ. P. 59 or an appeal from the district court's order remanding the underlying case to state court. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion and find no abuse of discretion.

Accordingly, we deny Appellant's motion for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Butler v. Hite, No. CA-96-67-2 (E.D. Va. Feb. 28,

1996). To the extent that Appellant attempts to appeal from the

remand order, the order is not appealable. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d)

(1988). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

AZIZI ANSARI, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

FELIPE MARTINEZ, Warden, FCI Safford; 

et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 20-17435 

D.C. No. 4:20-cv-00164-RM-PSOT 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Rosemary Márquez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 14, 2021**

Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Federal prisoner Azizi Ansari appeals pro se from the district court’s 

judgment dismissing his action alleging claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act 

(“FTCA”) and Bivens claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We 

review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 

* 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

SEP 22 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 20-17435 

Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm. 

The district court properly dismissed Ansari’s FTCA claim as time-barred 

because he asserted the claim more than six months after the federal agency denied 

his claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b) (“A tort claim against the United States shall 

be forever barred . . . unless action is begun within six months after the date of 

mailing, by certified or registered mail, of notice of final denial of the claim by the 

agency to which it was presented.”).

The district court properly dismissed Ansari’s Eighth Amendment claims 

because, even if a Bivens remedy is available for these claims, Ansari failed to 

allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 

341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed, a 

plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for 

relief); see also Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 837 (1994) (to challenge 

his conditions of confinement, a prisoner must show both that he was subjected to 

a sufficiently serious deprivation and that defendants knew of and disregarded an 

excessive risk to his health or safety); Schwenk v. Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187, 1196 

(9th Cir. 2000) (an Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment claim 

requires punishment which is “offensive to human dignity” (citation omitted)).

AFFIRMED.