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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FRANCISCO JAVIER HERRERA VEGA,

Petitioner,

v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 15

- 72194

Agency No. A200

- 090

- 093

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 15, 2022 * *

Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

Francisco Javier Herrera Vega , native and citizen of Mexico , petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal

from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of

removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) . O ur

* 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 23 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 15

- 72194

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

the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr , 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th

Cir. 2020). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Herrera Vega

failed to demonstrate a nexus between the harm he experienced or fears in Mexico

and a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder , 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010)

(an applicant’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft

or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”);

Barrios v. Holder , 581 F.3d 849, 856 (9th Cir. 2009) (politi cal opinion claim failed

where petitioner did not present sufficient evidence of political or ideological

opposition to the gang’s ideals)
, abrogated on other grounds by Henriquez

- Rivas v.

Holder , 707 F.3d 1081, 1093 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc)

. Thus, his w ithholding of

removal claim fails.

We lack jurisdiction to consider the particular social groups raised for the

first time in Herrera Vega’s opening brief because he failed to raise them before

the BIA

. See Barron v. Ashcroft , 358 F.3d 674, 677

- 78 (9th Ci r. 2004) (court lacks

jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

Herrera Vega failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or

with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico

. See3 15

- 72194

Wakkary v. Holder , 558 F.3d 1049, 1068 (9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of torture)

. We reject Herrera Vega’s contention that the agency erred in its analysis of

his claims as unsupported by the rec ord

. The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the

mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
f8k011908ex10viii_mmg.htm


     

     

    Exhibit
10.8

     

     

     

    CONVERSION
AGREEMENT

    


    This
Conversion Agreement
(the “Agreement”), dated as
of January 19, 2009, is made and entered into by and between Mega Media Group,
Inc. (the “Company”), and Lev
Paukman. (the “Holder”).

    


    RECITALS

    


    WHEREAS, the Holder holds a 9%
promissory note with an outstanding principal amount of $150,000.00 and interest
amount of $3,254.79 (the “Note”), dated October
23, 2008 for a total of $153,254.79 which has been assumed by the Company;
and

    


    WHEREAS, the Holder has agreed
to convert the Note, including accrued interest thereon, into shares of the
Company’s common stock, par value $0.001 per share (the “Common Stock”), on
the terms and subject to the conditions set forth herein.

    


    NOW, THEREFORE, intending to
be legally bound, the parties hereby agree as follows:

    


    
      	
              1.  

            	
              Conversion. The Holder
      shall convert the outstanding principal due under the Note, together with
      any interest accrued thereon through the date of conversion, into shares
      of the Company's Common Stock, at the rate of $0.01 per share (the “Conversion”)
      for a total of 15,325,479 shares. The Conversion shall be considered
      payment in full by the Company of the Note and the conversion method in
      the Note shall be waived. The Holder shall deliver the Note to the Company
      for cancellation.

            


    

    


    
      	
              2.  

            	
              Binding Effect. This
      instrument is being executed by the Holder and shall be binding upon its
      successors and assigns for the uses and purposes above set forth and
      referred to, and shall be effective as of the date
  hereof.

            


    

    


    
      	
              3.  

            	
              Governing Law. This
      instrument shall be governed by and enforced in accordance with the laws
      of the State of New York without any application of the principles of
      conflicts of laws.

            


    

    
 

    
      
        
        

      

      
        -1-

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    

    


    


    


    


    


    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this
Agreement has been duly executed by the Company and Holder as of the date first
above written.

    


     

    MEGA
MEDIA GROUP, INC.

     

    /s/
Alex
Shvarts                                       

                                                                                                       Alex Shvarts, CEO

    


    THE
HOLDER

    


    


    /s/ Dr Lev
Paukman                                 


    
      Dr Lev
Paukman

       

       

       

      -2-
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-30331

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MICHAEL IRBY,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:13-CR-111-1

Before DAVIS, ELROD, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Michael Irby 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). Irby has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed 

to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Irby’s claims of ineffective assistance 

of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims without prejudice to 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 24, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-30331 Document: 00512946062 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/24/2015
No. 14-30331

collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir.), cert. 

denied, 135 S. Ct. 123 (2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record 

reflected therein, as well as Irby’s response. 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

5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Irby’s request to proceed pro se is DENIED as untimely. See 

United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998).

2

 Case: 14-30331 Document: 00512946062 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/24/2015
# L_2018036EN.01003802.xml

| 9.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 36/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 36/38

---

Corrigendum to Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2018/16 of 8 January 2018 implementing Decision (CFSP) 2016/849 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 4 of 9 January 2018
  )

On page 18, Annex, Part A, entry 75, third column:

for:

‘DOB: 20.8.1965

Passport No 563233049 expires 11.3.2019.

...’,

read:

‘DOB: 21.8.1957

Passport No 563233049 expires 9.5.2018.

...’.

---
# m8639.docx

EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 30.11.2017 C(2017) 8224 final To the notifying part y : Subject : Case M. 8639 - CARIPARMA / CARICESENA / CARIM / CARISMI Commission decision pursuant to Article 6(1 )( b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 1 and Article 57 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area 2 Dear Sir or Madam, 1. On 8 November 2017 , the European Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of the Merger Regulation by which Crédit Agricole Cariparma S.p.A (" Cariparma ", Italy) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Cassa di Risparmio di Cesena S.p.A. (" Caricesena ", Italy), Cassa di Risparmio di Rimini S.p.A. (" Carim ", Italy) and Cassa di Risparmio di San Miniato S.p.A. (" Carismi ", Italy) by way of purchase of shares . 3 2. The business activities of the undertakings concerned are: - for Cariparma : a subsidiary of Crédit Agricole S.A. ("Credit Agricole ", France) which is the first bancassurer and asset manager in Europe. The Group Crédit Agricole is present in Italy with a complete range of financial services; - for Caricesena : active in all areas relating to financial intermediation credit , in northern and central Italy; - for Carim : active in the retail banking sector in Italy, in p articular in the Italian r egions of Emilia R omagna, Marche, Umbria and Lazio; - for Carismi : mainly active in the retail banking sector, in p articular in northern and central Italy, in the region of Tuscany. 3. After examination of the notification, the European Commission has concluded that the notified operation falls within the scope of the Merger Regulation and of paragraph 5 ( c ) of the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 . 4 4. For the reasons set out in the Notice on a simplified procedure, the European Commission has decided not to oppose the notified operation and to declare it compatible with the internal market and with the EEA Agreement. This decision is adopted in application of Article 6(1 )( b) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement . For the Commission (signed) Johannes LAITENBERGER Director - General
(1)
OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 ( the ' Merger Regulation ' ). With effect from 1 December 2009, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ( ' TFEU ' ) has introduced certain changes, such as the replacement of ' Community ' by ' Union ' and ' common market ' by ' internal market ' . The terminology of the TFEU will be used throughout this decision.
(2) OJ L 1, 3.1.1994, p. 3 ( the ' EEA Agreement ' ).
(3) Publication in the Official Journal of the European Union No C 385 , 15.11.2017 , p. 18 .
(4)
OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5 .
Case No. 17-cv-00220 LHK (NC) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

 v.

QUALCOMM INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-00220 LHK (NC)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART QUALCOMM’S

REQUEST TO COMPEL FTC 

INTERROGATORY RESPONSES

Re: Dkt. No. 623

Before the Court is Qualcomm’s request to compel amended responses by the FTC 

to two contention interrogatories. In the interest of judicial efficiency, the Court rules 

immediately and without need for a hearing. The specific interrogatory requests and 

responses are attached to the discovery letter brief and are only summarized here. Dkt. 

Nos. 623, 624.

In interrogatory request no. 5(e), Qualcomm seeks “the date, if any, on which each 

product identified ... [the identified relevant products] ceased to be within the relevant 

product market, and a detailed description of why that is the date the product ceased to be 

in the relevant product market.” The FTC’s answer states that “the FTC does not know the 

date on which each discontinued product was discontinued . . . [and] does not know the 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 628 Filed 03/16/18 Page 1 of 2
Case No. 17-cv-00220 LHK (NC) 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

date on which [relevant products] was no longer considered for inclusion within flagship 

or premium tier handsets.” Dkt. No. 623 at 5. 

The Court finds that the FTC has answered the interrogatory sufficiently. If, 

however, the FTC later learns additional or corrective information that has not otherwise 

been disclosed, it must supplement its response in accordance with Rule 26(e).

In interrogatory request no. 13, Qualcomm asks the FTC to identify “specific 

instances in which a rival baseband processor supplier incurred increased costs caused by 

any [anticompetitive] conduct of Qualcomm, identify the amount of any such increased 

costs, and provide all facts concerning or supporting your response.” The FTC’s core 

answer is that “The tax imposed by Qualcomm represents an economic cost to all rival 

baseband processor suppliers.” Dkt. No. 623 at 6.

The Court agrees with Qualcomm that (1) this interrogatory requests relevant 

information, and (2) the FTC’s response is a legal generality, where specific facts are 

requested. Therefore, the FTC is ordered to amend its response to request no. 13 by March 

23, providing specific facts and identifying specific rivals and specific costs.

No costs or fees are awarded.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 16, 2018 _____________________________________

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 628 Filed 03/16/18 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.2



Certification by Chief Financial Officer 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 Annual Report of Four Oaks Fincorp, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Nancy S. Wise, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial 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, to my knowledge, that:



(1)

The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ Nancy S. Wise .

Nancy S. Wise

Executive Vice President and

Chief Financial Officer



March 15, 2007



This Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, whether made before or after the date of this Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Fredrick ALLEN, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-1730

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 13, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Granted.
**EXHIBIT 23**

 

**CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

** **

We consent to the incorporationby reference in the following Registration Statements of our reports datedMarch 7, 2005, relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedulesof Vornado Realty L.P., (which report expresses an unqualified opinion andincludes an explanatory paragraph relating to the Company’s application of theprovisions of SFAS No. 142 *“Goodwill andOther Intangible Assets”*) and management’s report on theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting appearing in theAnnual Report on Form 10-K of Vornado Realty L.P. for the year ended December31, 2004:

 

Vornado Realty Trust and Vornado Realty L.P. (Joint RegistrationStatements) :

 

Amendment No. 4 to Registration Statement No. 333-40787 on Form S-3

Amendment No. 4 to Registration Statement No. 333-29013 on Form S-3

Registration Statement No. 333-108138 on Form S-3

 

 

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

 

Parsippany, New Jersey

March 7, 2005

 

1

----
**Exhibit 31.2****Certifications**I, James F. Ropella, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of First Business FinancialServices, Inc., certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of First Business Financial Services,Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresandpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based onsuch evaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors: a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting       /s/ James F. Ropella James F. Ropella
Exhibit 32.2

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

I, Robert K. Mills, Chief Financial Officer of Tri-S Security Corporation (the
Company), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | 1. | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2007 (the Periodic Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §§78m or 78o(d)); and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: May 9, 2007



/s/ Robert K. MillsRobert K. Mills, Chief Financial
Officer
exv4w11






Exhibit 4.11




Consent of Steven Ristorcelli




     I, Steven Ristorcelli, hereby confirm that I have read the Offer and Circular of Fronteer
Development Group Inc. (the “Company”) furnished with the Company’s offer dated January 23, 2009 to
purchase all of the issued and outstanding common shares of Aurora Energy Resources Inc., which
Offer and Circular incorporates by reference the Company’s annual information form dated March 27,
2008 for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the “AIF”).



     I hereby consent to the use of my name in connection with references to my preparation or
involvement in the preparation of the following technical reports in the AIF or other documents
incorporated by reference therein: (i) the technical report dated November 1, 2007 entitled
“Updated Technical Report of the Zaca Project, Alpine County, California, USA” prepared together
with David Griffith, (ii) the technical report dated November 1, 2007 entitled “Updated Technical
Report Northumberland Project, Nye County, Nevada, USA” prepared together with Michael M. Gustin
and George Lanier, and (iii) the technical report dated July 15, 2006 entitled “Technical Report
Northumberland Project, Nye County, Nevada, USA” prepared together with Michael M. Gustin and
George Lanier (collectively, the “Technical Reports”). I further consent to the inclusion in the
Offer and Circular and the registration statement on Form F-8 filed with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Registration Statement”) of the Technical Reports (through
the inclusion by way of incorporation by reference of the AIF in the Offer and Circular) and of
extracts from or a summary of the Technical Reports in the Offer and Circular and the Registration
Statement or any documents incorporated by reference therein.



     I also hereby confirm that I have read the Technical Reports and extracts from or a summary of
the Technical Reports contained in the Offer and Circular and the Registration Statement by way of
incorporation by reference of the AIF and that I have no reason to believe there are any
misrepresentations in the information contained therein that is derived from the Technical Reports
or that is within my knowledge as a result of the services that I have performed in connection with
the Technical Reports.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	January 23, 2009 	  	(signed) Steven Ristorcelli
 	 
	 	 	Steven Ristorcelli, R.P.Geo.
EX PARTE Labarron PERKINS, Sr.

CR-17-0204

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

January 29, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. denied.