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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHRISTIAN ERNESTO RODRIGUEZRODRIGUEZ,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-70065

Agency No. A097-558-094

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 13, 2014** 

Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Christian Ernesto Rodriguez-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of El Salvador,

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order

dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his

application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention

FILED

AUG 20 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We

review for substantial evidence factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d

1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and grant in part the petition for

review, and we remand.

The agency denied Rodriguez-Rodriguez’s asylum application as time

barred. Rodriguez-Rodriguez does not challenge this finding in his opening brief.

In denying Rodriguez-Rodriguez’s withholding of removal claim, the

agency found Rodriguez-Rodriguez failed to establish a fear of future persecution

on account of a protected ground. When the IJ and BIA issued their decisions in

this case they did not have the benefit of this court’s decisions in Henriquez-Rivas

v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc), Cordoba v. Holder, 726 F.3d

1106 (9th Cir. 2013), and Pirir-Boc v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2014), or

the BIA’s decisions in Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227 (BIA 2014), and

Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 208 (BIA 2014). Thus, we remand RodriguezRodriguez’s withholding of removal claim to determine the impact, if any, of these

decisions. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).

In addition, the BIA appeared to have relied on the existence of government

corruption in denying Rodriguez-Rodriguez’s withholding of removal claim, but

did not consider government corruption in its analysis of his CAT claim. We

2 08-70065
remand Rodriguez-Rodriguez’s CAT claim for the agency to consider the impact

of government corruption on its analysis of state action. See id.; see also Madrigal

v. Holder, 716 F.3d 499, 509-510 (9th Cir. 2013).

Finally, we deny as moot Rodriguez-Rodriguez’s motion to remand. 

Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part.

REMANDED.

3 08-70065
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

The Partners
CarrAmerica Realty, L.P.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-53751) on Form S-3 of CarrAmerica Realty, L.P. of our report dated January
28, 2003, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of CarrAmerica Realty,
L.P. and subsidiary as of December 31, 2002 and 2001 and the related
consolidated statements of operations, partners' capital, and cash flows for
each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2002 and all
related financial statement schedules, which report appears in the December 31,
2002 annual report on Form 10-K of CarrAmerica Realty, L.P. Our report refers to
the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 144, "Accounting
for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets."

/s/ KPMG

Washington, DC
March 31, 2003
David ABEL, et al., Appellants, v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, J.P. Morgan Securities, Ltd, John Hogan, and Richard Cassa, Appellees.

No. 4D18-2442

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 23, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
----

----

| 1.   | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                     |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|           |                                                                                                                                                                |
| 2.   | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |

| Dated:      January 12, 2009 |   | /s/      Javan Khazali                       |
|------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------|
|                         |   | Javan      Khazali                           |
|                         |   | President      & Chief Executive Officer |
|                         |   |                                         |
|                         |   |                                         |
| Dated:      January 12, 2009 |   | /s/ Chad      Burback                        |
|                         |   | Chad      Burback                            |
|                         |   | Chief Financial      Officer                 |
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.2

                             SECURED PROMISSORY NOTE
                                     (KAUL)

$100,000.00                                                        JULY 18, 2003


         FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, Veena Kaul ("Buyer"), hereby
promises to pay to JMAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. ("Payee"), the principal sum of ONE
HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($100,000.00) in immediately available funds in lawful
money of the United States (the "Principal").

         The principal amount shall be payable in four equal annual installments
of $25,000 commencing on December 1, 2004, with the remaining principal
installments due on December 1, 2005, December 1, 2006 and December 1, 2007.

         The Principal may be prepaid in whole or in part at any time, without
premium or penalty.

         The performance of all obligations under this Note is secured by that
certain Pledge Agreement, dated July 18, 2003, between Buyer and Payee.

         The Buyer hereby promises to pay all installments of principal and
other amounts due hereunder on or before the date on which the same is due, and
any payment not so received within ten (10) days after the date that same shall
have been due shall bear interest, to the extent permitted by law, at the rate
equal to fifteen percent (15%) after such amount becomes overdue, such interest
to be payable on demand. All calculations of interest hereunder shall be
calculated on the basis of a 360 day year for the actual number of days elapsed.

         In the event that (i) the Buyer fails to make any payment of principal,
interest or other charge under this Note within thirty (30) days after receipt
of written notice by the Payee that the same was due; or (ii) the Buyer files a
voluntary petition in bankruptcy or applies for the appointment of a receiver
for it or its assets; or (iii) an involuntary petition in bankruptcy is filed
against the Buyer and remains unstayed or undischarged for a period in excess of
one hundred twenty (120) days; the Payee may accelerate the entire balance
outstanding under this Note, and the entire unpaid Principal balance together
with accrued but unpaid interest and other charges hereunder shall be due and
payable fifteen (15) days after receipt by the Buyer of such notice.

         The undersigned Buyer hereby waives presentment, demand, notice of
dishonor, protest and all other demands and notices in connection with the
delivery, acceptance, performance and enforcement of this Note.

         If this Note is not paid when due, Buyer promises to pay all costs of
collection, including but not limited to, reasonable attorneys' fees, whether or
not suit is filed on this Note.

<PAGE>

         This Note shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the
laws of the State of California.

Chatsworth, California                      /s/ Veena Kaul
                                            ____________________________________
                                            Veena Kaul

                                       2
#### Demetric Gray PEARSON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. James PEGUESE; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents—Appellees.

No. 04-6524.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 29, 2004.

Decided May 6, 2004.

Demetric Gray Pearson, Petitioner pro se. Mary Ann Rapp Ince, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Demetric Gray Pearson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. *162§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court on the merits absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). As to claims dismissed by a district court solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’ ” *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.2001) (quoting *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Pearson has not satisfied either standard. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). Accordingly, we deny Pearson’s motions for transcript at government expense, for appointment of counsel, for a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-20-00517-CR

EX PARTE V.G.

On Appeal from the

214th District Court of Nueces County, Texas

Trial Cause No. CR07003875-F(1)

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

February 4, 2021
Exhibit 32.1  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 Our Glass, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the fiscal period ended September 30, 2009 (the Report), I, Cosmo Palmieri, Chief Executive 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: 1) The Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.  Date: November 10, 2009 /s/Cosmo Palmieri     Chief Executive Officer
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 40362 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JULIO ALEJANDRO ARIAS

- BARRON , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:11

- CR

- 68

- 1

Before DENNIS, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Julio Alejandro Arias

- Barron 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). Arias

- Barron h a s not fi led a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 20, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-40362 Document: 00513804026 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/20/2016No. 16

- 40362

2 presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 16-40362 Document: 00513804026 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/20/2016
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Benton, Humphreys and Senior Judge Overton

BLUEPRINT TECHNOLOGIES AND TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 2993-05-4 PER CURIAM APRIL 11, 2006 SUSAN A. NELSON

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Roger L. Williams; John T. Cornett, Jr.; Williams & Lynch, on brief), for appellants. (Andrew S. Kasmer, on brief), for appellee.

The Workers’ Compensation Commission f ound that Susan A. Nelson refused to cooperate with reasonable and necessary medical treatment as of August 4, 2004, but that she cured her unjustified refusal of medical treatment as of January 28, 2005. Blueprint Technologies and its insurer (her einafter referred to as “empl oyer”) appeal and contend the commission erred in finding Nelson cured her refusal. Pursuant to Rule 5A:21(b), Nelson raises the additional question whether th e commission erred in finding that she unjustifiably refused

medical treatment. We have reviewed the record and the commission’s opinion, and we hold that this appeal is without merit as to both que stions. Accordingly, we affirm the commission’s award for the reasons stated by the co mmission in its final opinion. See Nelson v. Blueprint Technologies et al. , VWC File No. 213-46-16 (Nov. 29, 2005). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and lega l contentions are adequately presented in the

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.- 2 - materials before the Court and argument woul d not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27.

Affirmed.
Terry Lee HAYNES, Jr., DOC #C04289, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-133

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 3, 2019

Terry Lee Haynes, Jr., pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed without prejudice to Appellant's right to file a timely and facially sufficient motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.

LaROSE, C.J., and MORRIS and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
**EXHIBIT 12.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Ronaldo Iabrudi, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 20-F of COMPANHIA BRASILEIRA DE DISTRIBUIÇÃO;  

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; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial information included in this report fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.

Date: January 30, 2015

By: /s/ Ronaldo Iabrudi
Case 3:05-cv-01894-N Document 1 Filed 09/23/05 Page 1 of 10 PageID 1
Case 3:05-cv-01894-N Document 1 Filed 09/23/05 Page 2 of 10 PageID 2
Case 3:05-cv-01894-N Document 1 Filed 09/23/05 Page 3 of 10 PageID 3
Case 3:05-cv-01894-N Document 1 Filed 09/23/05 Page 4 of 10 PageID 4
Case 3:05-cv-01894-N Document 1 Filed 09/23/05 Page 5 of 10 PageID 5
Case 3:05-cv-01894-N Document 1 Filed 09/23/05 Page 6 of 10 PageID 6
Case 3:05-cv-01894-N Document 1 Filed 09/23/05 Page 7 of 10 PageID 7
Case 3:05-cv-01894-N Document 1 Filed 09/23/05 Page 8 of 10 PageID 8
Case 3:05-cv-01894-N Document 1 Filed 09/23/05 Page 9 of 10 PageID 9
Case 3:05-cv-01894-N Document 1 Filed 09/23/05 Page 10 of 10 PageID 10
Exhibit
32.1





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 Bois d'Arc Energy, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gary
Blackie, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.





/s/GARY W.
BLACKIE


Gary W.
Blackie


Chief
Executive Officer


May 9, 2008
Terrance J. JENKINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-1471

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 24, 2019]

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Tatjana Ostapoff, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Maryellen M. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed* . *See**Quarrells v. State* , 641 So.2d 490 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) ; *Gilbert v. State* , 547 So.2d 246 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).

Warner, Gross and Forst, JJ., concur.
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 Horizon Lines, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending
March 26, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, M. Mark Urbania, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
as adopted pursuant to § 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 results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------
|/s/ M. MARK URBANIA                              
|M. Mark Urbania                                  
|Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|(Principal Financial Officer)                    

April 28, 2006
March 31, 2022 December 31, 2021

Assets

Cash and Cash Equivalents $                       707,813 $                    4,940,345

Investments in U.S. Treasury Obligations 5,942,351,062 5,471,826,084

Accrued Interest Receivable 28,093,679 23,186,965

Premium Receivable 124,968,911 460,503,000

Other Receivables 2

General Property, Equipment, and Software,

Total Assets

Net 1,278 5,993

$            6,096,122,743 $            5,960,462,389

Liabilities and Insurance Fund

Accounts Payable and Accrued Expenses $                       701,060 $                       694,823

Farm Credit Insurance Fund

     Unallocated Insurance Fund Balance 6,095,421,683 5,959,767,566

Allocated Insurance Fund Balance

Total Insurance Fund $            6,095,421,683 $            5,959,767,566

Total Liabilities and Insurance Fund $            6,096,122,743 $            5,960,462,389

Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation

Comparative Statement of Financial Condition

March 31, 2022 and December 31, 2021

(Unaudited)
Calendar Year to Date Calendar Year to Date

March 31, 2022 March 31, 2021

Income

Premiums $               124,968,911 $               115,033,207

Interest Income on Investments 11,770,556 11,793,064

Total Income $               136,739,467 $               126,826,271

Expenses

Administrative Operating Expenses $                   1,085,350 $                      924,267

$                   1,085,350 $                      924,267

Net Income $               135,654,117 $               125,902,004

Balance at January 1, 2022

Payment to AIRAs Accountholders $           5,959,767,566

Net Income 135,654,117

Balance at March 31, 2022 $           6,095,421,683

(Unaudited)

Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation

Comparative Statement of Revenue and Expense

Period Ended March 31, 2022 and March 31, 2021

(Unaudited)

Statement of Changes in Insurance Fund

Period Ended March 31, 2022
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 14 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 14

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
    United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental 
 Protection Agency relating to ``Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission 
    Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources Review''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 25, 2021

 Mr. Heinrich (for himself, Mr. King, Mr. Markey, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. 
Whitehouse, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Lujan, Mr. Leahy, Ms. Smith, Ms. Klobuchar, 
 Mr. Schumer, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Schatz, Mrs. Feinstein, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. 
Casey, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Padilla, Mr. Menendez, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Reed, 
  and Mr. Wyden) introduced the following joint resolution; which was 
  read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public 
                                 Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
    United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental 
 Protection Agency relating to ``Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission 
    Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources Review''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
Agency relating to ``Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for 
New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources Review'' (85 Fed. Reg. 57018 
(September 14, 2020)), and such rule shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
EX PARTE Tyrone Rashawn VAIL

1161075 (CR-16-0176)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

October 20, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.