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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MINGHU CHE,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 14-70959

Agency No. A099-763-749

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 14, 2016**

Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Minghu Che, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an 

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of 

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our

 

* 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 20 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 14-70959 

jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence 

the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility 

determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 

1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for 

review. 

The agency found Che not credible based on inconsistencies between his 

testimony and documentary evidence, and on his evasive and agitated demeanor 

during the hearing. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility 

determination. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under 

the “totality of circumstances”). Che’s explanations do not compel a contrary 

result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the absence of 

credible testimony, Che’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See 

Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

We lack jurisdiction to review Che’s CAT claim because he did not raise it 

to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (no 

jurisdiction over claims not presented below). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
IV 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 686 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2821) to provide tax relief 

for American workers and businesses, to put workers back on the job 

while rebuilding and modernizing America, and to provide pathways 

back to work for Americans looking for jobs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 24, 2014 

Ms. WILSON of Florida submitted the following resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on Rules 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2821) to provide 

tax relief for American workers and businesses, to put 

workers back on the job while rebuilding and modernizing America, and to provide pathways back to work 

for Americans looking for jobs. 

1 Resolved, That immediately upon adoption of this res2 olution the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 

3 XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of 

4 the Whole House on the state of the Union for consider5 ation of the bill (H.R. 2821) to provide tax relief for 

6 American workers and businesses, to put workers back on 

7 the job while rebuilding and modernizing America, and to 


tjames on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 686 IH 

1 provide pathways back to work for Americans looking for 

2 jobs. All points of order against consideration of the bill 

3 are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill 

4 and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and con5 trolled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 

6 Committee on Ways and Means. After general debate the 

7 bill shall be considered for amendment under the five8 minute rule. Each section of the bill shall be considered 

9 as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill 

10 are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill 

11 for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the 

12 bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 

13 adopted. The previous question shall be considered as or14 dered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 

15 without intervening motion except one motion to recommit 

16 with or without instructions. If the Committee of the 

17 Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution 

18 on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House 

19 shall, immediately after the third daily order of business 

20 under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee 

21 of the Whole for further consideration of the bill. 

22 SEC. 2. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to 

23 the consideration of H.R. 2821. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Floods

Filters

              - science_education(17)
              - science_faqs(14)
              - science_science(750)
              - products_data(356)
              - products_maps(78)
              - products_publications(4311)
              - products_software(12)
              - products_web_tools(51)
              - multimedia_audio(105)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(96)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(9)
              - multimedia_before_after(17)
              - multimedia_image(1659)
              - multimedia_image-141769(49)
              - multimedia_image-141770(14)
              - multimedia_image-141771(1466)
              - multimedia_image-141772(11)
              - multimedia_image-141774(8)
              - multimedia_image-141775(73)
              - multimedia_image-141776(27)
              - multimedia_image-204460(5)
              - (-)multimedia_image-207195(2)
              - multimedia_slideshow(20)
              - multimedia_video(419)
              - multimedia_video-149194(144)
              - multimedia_video-149195(141)
              - multimedia_video-149196(26)
              - multimedia_video-149197(35)
              - multimedia_video-149198(17)
              - multimedia_video-149225(7)
              - multimedia_webcam(22)
              - multimedia_webcam-141785(16)
              - multimedia_webcam-141786(4)
              - documents_file(41)
              - documents_file-149206(1)
              - documents_file-149208(6)
              - documents_file-149210(2)
              - documents_file-149212(1)
              - (-)documents_file-149214(6)
              - documents_file-149216(4)
              - documents_file-149217(1)
              - documents_file-149218(1)
              - documents_file-149220(10)
              - documents_file-149222(3)
              - news_news-149245(99)
              - news_news-149246(8)
              - news_news-149248(28)
              - news_news-149249(4)
              - news_news-149250(51)
              - news_newsletters(17)
              - news_other_news(101)
              - connect_social_media(2)
              - connect_staff_profiles(104)
              - other_basic-37(3)
              - other_basic-42(55)

## By Location

## By Year

Screenshots        April 11, 2024        QR code for Alaska Flood Observation Facebook Group

Screenshots        April 11, 2024        QR code for DGGS Photo Database of Flooding in Alaska

Reference Materials        September 18, 2018        USGS Flood Inundation Mapping Program Information Sheet

Reference Materials        August 28, 2018        Flood Inundation Mapping Program Information sheet - Print Quality

Reference Materials        August 30, 2018        Flood Inundation Mapping Program poster of information sheet

Reference Materials        July 17, 2018        FIM Project Published References

Reference Materials        October 18, 2018        Projection shapefile for FIM report

Reference Materials        January 26, 2023        USGS StreamStats: Hydrologic and Geospatial Data Integrated to Support Water Science and Management
Tammera Carmel BANKO, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Nicholas J. BANKO, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-4116

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 11, 2019

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Pursuant to the notice of voluntary dismissal filed herein, this appeal is dismissed.
PT CAPITAL INVESTMENTS, LLC, Appellant, v. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, Robert J. Lang, a/k/a Robert James Lang, Community West Bank, National Association, Suntrust Bank, Windsor Estates Homeowners Association, Inc., et al, Appellees.

Case No. 5D17-3574

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed January 22, 2019

Ian P. Hudson and Francis M. King, of King Hudson PLLC, St. Petersburg, for Appellant.

Robert R. Edwards, of Choice Legal Group, PA, Ft. Lauderdale, for Appellee, Federal National Mortgage Association.

No Appearance for Other Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. *See**Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee*, 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) ; *Sullivan v. Sullivan*, 791 So.2d 1119 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).

BERGER, LAMBERT, and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur.
III 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 315 

To authorize testimony and representation in United States v. Bozell. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 26, 2023 

Mr. SCHUMER (for himself and Mr. MCCONNELL) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

To authorize testimony and representation in United States 

v. Bozell. 

Whereas, in the case of United States v. Bozell, Cr. No. 21- 

216, pending in the United States District Court for the 

District of Columbia, the prosecution has requested the 

production of testimony from Daniel Schwager, a former 

employee of the Office of the Secretary of the Senate; 

Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the 

Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. §§ 288b(a) 

and 288c(a)(2), the Senate may direct its counsel to represent current and former officers and employees of the 

Senate with respect to any subpoena, order, or request 

for evidence relating to their official responsibilities; 

Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States 

and Rule XI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, no eviVerDate Sep 11 2014 05:29 Jul 27, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\SR315.ATS SR315

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

SRES 315 ATS 

dence under the control or in the possession of the Senate may, by the judicial or administrative process, be 

taken from such control or possession but by permission 

of the Senate; and 

Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or 

in the possession of the Senate may promote the administration of justice, the Senate will take such action as will 

promote the ends of justice consistent with the privileges 

of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That Daniel Schwager, a former employee 

2 of the Office of the Secretary of the Senate, is authorized 

3 to provide relevant testimony in the case of United States 

4 v. Bozell, except concerning matters for which a privilege 

5 should be asserted. 

6 SEC. 2. The Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to 

7 represent Mr. Schwager, and any current or former officer 

8 or employee of the Secretary’s office, in connection with 

9 the production of evidence authorized in section one of this 

10 resolution. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
Clifford R. SAULTER, Appellant, v. Vanessa MOLL, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-1057

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed February 5, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
**INTERVIDEO, INC.**

 

**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF GRANT THORNTON LLP, INDEPENDENT REGISTERED**

**PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

The Board of Directors 

InterVideo, Inc.: 

 

We have issued our reportsdated March 31, 2006, accompanying the consolidated financial statements and management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting included in the Annual Report of InterVideo, Inc. on Form 10-K for theyear ended December 31, 2005. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statements of InterVideo, Inc. on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-107441 and 333-124542) 

 

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP 

 

San Jose, California 

March 31, 2006
1821.

#### Jordan *v.*The State.

Accusation of carrying concealed weapon, from city court of Montieello — Judge Thurman. March 16, 1909.

Submitted May 4, —

Decided May 18, 1909.

*Greene F. Johnson,*for plaintiff in error.

*Doyle Campbell,*solicitor, contra.

Hnx, C. J.

No error of law is complained of, and the evidence fully supports the verdict. ' *Judgment affirmed.*
David Neil CARR, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-4800

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

January 11, 2019

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

This appeal is dismissed for failure of the appellant to comply with this court's December 6, 2018, order requesting the submission of an amended notice of appeal that identifies the date of the order for which review is sought.

LaROSE, C.J., and NORTHCUTT and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCUIT

No. 09-11128 Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. BRYAN MUNSON EWING, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:09-CR-2-1
Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Bryan Munson Ewing has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 ( 1967), and United States v . Flores , 632 F.3d 229 ( 5th Cir. 2011). Ewing has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to p ermit consideration of Ewing’s claim that his guilty plea was made under coercion and duress. See United States v. Corbett , 742 F.2d 173, 176-78 (5th Cir. 1 984). He may raise such a claim in a 28 U.S

. C

. § 2 2 5 5 motion. See id. at 178 n.11. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Octob er 21 , 20 11 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5 , the court hasd ete rm inedthat thisop inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 09-11128 Document: 00511640015 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/21/2011No. 09-11128

Likewise, the record is insufficiently developed to all o w consideration at this time of Ewing’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; such a claim generally “cannot be resolved on direct appeal when the claim has not been raised before the district court since no opportunity existed to develop the record on the merits of the allegations.” United States v. Cantwell , 470 F.3d 1087, 1 0 91 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We have reviewed counsel’s briefs and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Ewing’s re sponse. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 T H C I R
. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 09-11128 Document: 00511640015 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/21/2011
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         December 27, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 13, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 538 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-835, K2025-836.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-30803 Filed 12-26-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Exhibit 32.2

Chief Financial Officer Certification (Section 906)

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

     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of
Nuclear Solutions, Inc., (the "Company"), hereby certify that, to the best of my
knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period
ended June 30, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operation of the Company. A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the registrant and will be retained by it and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

Dated August 23, 2004.
                                                         Chief Financial Officer
                                                         John Dempsey

                                      20
1651.

#### Cottle *v.*Wade.

Certiorari, from Tift superior court — Judge Mitchell. December 18, 1908.

Submitted February 25, —

Decided June 15, 1909.

*J. B. Mun-ow, J. J. Murray,*for plaintiff in error.

*W. J. Wallace,*contra.

Powell, J.

1. One who has filed a claim to the levy of a lien foreclosure can not successfully urge the point that the verdict finding the property subject is illegal because there was a misjoinder of parties plaintiff.

2. There was sufficient evidence to justify the jury in finding that the claimant bought the property with notice, either actual or constructive, of the lien of the plaintiffs. *Judgment affirmed.*
Deyvi Roger Yanta NIEBLA, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. State of Florida DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE CHILD SUPPORT PROGRAM and Daymary Ramos, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D18-1795

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

SEPTEMBER 25, 2018

The Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure requires the filing of the notice of appeal with the clerk of the lower tribunal within 30 days of rendition of the order. In response to the order to show cause, the Appellant noted the order it appealed was rendered on July 30, 2018 and it filed the notice of appeal with this Court on August 30, 2018, which was one day beyond the 30 day mark. The Appellant also noted it mailed a copy of its notice of appeal to the lower tribunal on August 29, 2018 but provided no indication that the notice was actually received (and thereby filed) by August 30, 2018. The appeal is accordingly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

LAGOA, LOGUE and SCALES, JJ., concur.
Stephen KING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-527

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[January 24, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 21.1**

**SUBSIDIARIES OFKENEXA CORPORATION**

*Subsidiary ofKenexa Corporation*

1.                KenexaTechnology, Inc. (a Pennsylvania corporation)

*Subsidiaries ofKenexa Technology, Inc.*

1.                Kenexa Limited (anEnglish private limited liability company)

2.                Kenexa TechnologiesPrivate Limited (an Indian private limited company)

3.                Devon Royce, Inc.(a Pennsylvania corporation)

4.                Kenexa Care, Inc.(a Pennsylvania corporation)

5.                Nextworx, Inc.(a Pennsylvania corporation)

6.                Kenexa TechnologyCanada Inc. (a corporation formed under the laws of the Province ofBritish Columbia)

7.                Kenexa Recruiter, Inc.(a Delaware corporation)

8.                Kenexa GovernmentSolutions, Inc. (a Colorado corporation)

9.                Kenexa Puerto RicoInc., (a Puerto Rico corporation)

10.         Psychometrics Services Limited,(a United Kingdom private limited company)

11.         Kenexa BrassRing, Inc.(a Delaware corporation)

12.         BrassRing Holdings BV (aNetherlands entity)

13.         BrassRing Asia PacificLimited  (a Hong Kong private companylimited by shares)

14.         BrassRing Canada, Inc.(a Canada corporation)

15.         BrassRing BV (aNetherlands entity)

16.         BrassRing GmgHMesseveranstalter und Medienagentur (a German entity)

17.         BrassRing Limited (aUnited Kingdom private limited company)

----
February 2, 2012

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

RAYMOND L. BROOKS, Appellant

NO. 14-11-00752-CV V.

GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO., Appellee

____________________

Today the Court heard appellant=s motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment 

signed by the court below on July 29, 2011. Having considered the motion and found it 

meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

RAYMOND L. BROOKS.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

We further order the mandate be issued immediately.