alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE EFRAIN BARRERA-CRUZ,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 10-72731

Agency No. A073-218-308

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted September 1, 2011

Seattle, Washington

Before: HAWKINS, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Jose Efrain Barrera-Cruz (“Cruz”) petitions for review of the Board of

Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) affirmance of the Immigration Judge’s denial of relief

FILED

SEP 15 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 The parties are familiar with the facts of the case, so we repeat them here 1

only to the extent necessary to explain our decision. 

 The REAL ID Act, passed in 2005, changed the standard governing 2

adverse credibility determinations; “inconsistencies no longer need to ‘go to the

heart’ of the petitioner’s claim to form the basis of an adverse credibility

determination.” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1043 (9th Cir. 2010). Cruz,

like the petitioner in Zamonov, filed his asylum application prior to May 11, 2005. 

2011 WL 1651231, at *4 n.2. Thus, Cruz’s case is governed by pre-REAL ID case

law. See Sinha v. Holder, 564 F.3d 1015, 1021 n.3 (9th Cir. 2009). 

2

based on an adverse credibility finding against Cruz. We have jurisdiction

pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we deny Cruz’s petition for review.1

While “minor” inconsistencies which reveal nothing about an asylum

applicant’s fear for his safety are not an adequate basis for an adverse credibility

finding, inconsistencies regarding events that “form the basis” of the asylum claim

are sufficient to support an adverse credibility determination. See Zamanov v.

Holder, __ F.3d __, 2011 WL 1651231 at *3 (9th Cir. April 29, 2011). Here, 2

there were major inconsistencies between Cruz’s 1994 asylum application and

2006 asylum interview—in both of which he claimed fear of persecution by

guerrillas—and his 2008 Supplemental Asylum Declaration and 2008

testimony—in both of which he claimed fear of persecution based on his sexual

orientation. The BIA addressed and reasonably rejected Cruz’s explanation for

these inconsistencies. See, e.g., Soto-Olarte v. Holder, 555 F.3d 1089, 1091 (9th

Cir. 2009). Moreover, there were inconsistencies within Cruz’s new claim: (1)
3

Cruz testified inconsistently on the frequency of his beatings in El Salvador; (2)

Cruz testified that he was 17 years old when he left El Salvador in 1992 and 36

years old—not 33—at the time of his 2008 hearing; and (3) Cruz admitted that he

lied to an examining doctor about his alcohol abuse. These inconsistencies are

sufficient to support the BIA’s adverse credibility finding. See Zamanov, 2011

WL 1651231, at *3–4 (denying a petition for review because the BIA’s adverse

credibility finding was supported by inconsistencies about the quantity of beatings

alleged by the petitioner). 

PETITION DENIED.
Nikolaos MAMALIS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9662.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Daniel TORRES, petitioner, v. James D. HARTLEY, Warden.

No. 12-9817.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Xin Li, hereby certifies, pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that

|1. | the annual report on Form 10-K of SGB International
      Holdings Inc. for the period ended March 31, 2011 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 Form 10-K fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of SGB International Holdings Inc.                                            



|June 29,  2011 | /s/ Xin Li                          
|-------------- | ------------------------------------
|               | Xin Li                              
|               | Chief Executive Officer and Director
|               | (Principal Executive Officer)       

---
Jimmie Craig DANIELS, petitioner, v. Michael SEPANAK, Warden.

No. 12-9806.

Supreme Court of the United States

July 22, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Justice KAGAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Richard A. PROCEVIAT, petitioner, v. Eric K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

No. 13-6820.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 9, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-11   filed 07/14/15   page 1 of 15

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-11   filed 07/14/15   page 2 of 15

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-11   filed 07/14/15   page 3 of 15

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-11   filed 07/14/15   page 4 of 15

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-11   filed 07/14/15   page 5 of 15

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-11   filed 07/14/15   page 6 of 15

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-11   filed 07/14/15   page 7 of 15

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-11   filed 07/14/15   page 8 of 15

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-11   filed 07/14/15   page 9 of 15

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-11   filed 07/14/15   page 10 of 15

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-11   filed 07/14/15   page 11 of 15

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-11   filed 07/14/15   page 12 of 15

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-11   filed 07/14/15   page 13 of 15

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-11   filed 07/14/15   page 14 of 15

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-11   filed 07/14/15   page 15 of 15
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20

- 1372

In re: ANTHONY ANDREWS, a/k/a Wheat

,

Petitioner

.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus ( 7:01

- cr

- 00027

- BO

- 1 )

Submitted : June 16, 2020 Decided: June 18, 2020

Before MOTZ and KING , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

Anthony Andrews , Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Anthony Andrews petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court

has unduly delayed in ruling on his motion for reconsideration

. He seeks an order from

this court directing the district court to act. The present record does not reveal undue delay

in the district court. A ccordingly, we deny the mandamus petition. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before this court and argument would no t aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
Hector GONZALEZ-CORELLA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-7086.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1400 Engrossed Amendment Senate (EAS)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

                  In the Senate of the United States,

                      December 22 (legislative day, December 21), 2005.
    Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 
1400) entitled ``An Act to amend title 18, United States Code, to 
provide penalties for aiming laser pointers at airplanes, and for other 
purposes.'', do pass with the following

                               AMENDMENT:

            Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION AGAINST INTERFERING WITH FLIGHT CREWS THROUGH 
              USE OF LASER POINTERS OR SIMILAR DEVICES.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 465 of title 49, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 46508. Interference with flight crew vision
    ``(a) In General.--An individual who interferes with, or attempts 
to interfere with, the ability of the flight crew of an aircraft in 
flight to see, or otherwise to impair the safe operation of an aircraft 
in flight, by illuminating the aircraft with a laser pointer or similar 
device shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 5 
years, or both.
    ``(b) Exceptions.--Subsection (a) does not apply to the 
illumination of aircraft by laser or other devices by--
            ``(1) an authorized individual in the conduct of research 
        and development or flight test operations conducted by an 
        aircraft manufacturer, the Federal Aviation Administration, or 
        any other person authorized by the Federal Aviation 
        Administration to conduct such research and development or 
        flight test operations;
            ``(2) members or elements of the Department of Defense 
        acting in an official capacity for the purpose of research, 
        development, operations, testing or training; or
            ``(3) by an individual using a laser emergency signaling 
        device to send an emergency distress signal.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter 465 of 
title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
following:

``46508. Interference with flight crew vision''.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
109th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1400

_______________________________________________________________________

                               AMENDMENT
```
David Ryan BOSTIC, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-8113.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Sandra Castro , ) ) P laintiff , )

) v. ) Civil Action No. 20

- 0585 (UNA) ) Party City of Bailey’s Crossroads, Inc. , ) ) Defendant

. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION This plaintiff filed a civil action last year following the Virginia Employment Commission ’s decision to deny her application for unemployment benefits. The Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Castro v. Party City of Bailey’s Crossroads, Inc. , No. 1:19

- cv - 1598 (D.D.C. June 12, 2019). The plaintiff ap pealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of prosecution. See Castro v. Party City of Bailey’s Crossroads, Inc ., No. 17

- 7115 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 22, 2020). Now before the Court is the pl aintiff’s new complaint which, in essence, is an
effort to pursue the appeal. T he D.C. Circuit’s dismissal of t he plaintiff’s prior appeal is a matter over which this Court lacks jurisdiction. See, e.g., Panko v. Rodak , 606 F.2d 168, 171 n.6 (7th Cir. 19 79) (“[I]t seems axiomatic that a lower court may not order the judges or officers of a higher court to take an action.”). The Court will grant the plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and will dismiss the complaint and this civil action without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

. An Order is issued separately. DATE: April 23, 2020 AMY BERMAN JACKSON United States District Judge 4/23/2020
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION AT LAFAYETTE

NICOLAS BERNARDO MARTINEZ, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CAUSE NO. 4:13-CV-015 PS 

vs. )

)

STATE OF INDIANA, REID D. MUATAUGH, )

and DONALD DANIEL, )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Nicolas Bernardo Martinez, a pro se prisoner, is suing Prosecuting Attorney Reid D.

Muataugh because he filed a petition to revoke his probation and requested a bench warrant for

his arrest. He is suing Judge Donald Daniel because he issued a warrant for his arrest, recalled

the warrant, did not bring him to court or release him, and held a hearing without him. 

“A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however

inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by

lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quotation marks and citations omitted).

Nevertheless, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must review the merits of a prisoner

complaint and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such

relief.

Martinez alleges that Prosecuting Attorney Reid D. Muataugh did not investigate his case

and prosecuted him based on false allegations. Nevertheless, “absolute immunity shields

prosecutors even if they act maliciously, unreasonably, without probable cause, or even on the

basis of false testimony or evidence.” Cooper v. Parrish, 203 F.3d 937, 947 (6th Cir. 2000)

case 4:13-cv-00015-PPS-APR document 4 filed 03/11/13 page 1 of 2
(quotation marks and citation omitted). Therefore the claims against Prosecuting Attorney Reid

D. Muataugh must be dismissed. 

Martinez alleges that Judge Donald Daniel violated many of his Constitutional rights as a

criminal defendant. Nevertheless, a judge is entitled to absolute immunity for judicial acts

regarding matters within the court’s jurisdiction, even if the judge’s “exercise of authority is

flawed by the commission of grave procedural errors.” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 359

(1978). Issuing warrants, scheduling hearings, conducting hearings, and ordering the

confinement and release of inmates are all within the jurisdiction of State trial courts. Therefore,

the claims against Judge Donald Daniel must be dismissed. 

For the foregoing reasons, this case is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A because

the defendants are immune from suit. 

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: March 11, 2013. s/ Philip P. Simon 

PHILIP P. SIMON, CHIEF JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

case 4:13-cv-00015-PPS-APR document 4 filed 03/11/13 page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 97 (Friday, May 19, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26881-26882]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12368]



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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[5207-7]


Proposed Settlement; Acid Rain Core Rules Litigation

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Settlement; Request for Public Comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act 
(``Act''), notice is hereby given of a proposed fourth partial 
settlement of Environmental Defense Fund v. Carol M. Browner, et al., 
No. 93-1203 (and consolidated cases) (D.C. Cir.)
    The case involves challenges by several parties to the acid rain 
core rules published in the Federal Register on January 11, 1993, at 58 
FR 3590 (January 11, 1993). The proposed settlement relates to the 
monitoring issues raised by the petitioners in the case and provides 
for a number of revisions to 40 CFR part 75.
    For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication 
of this notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to 
the settlement from persons who were not named as parties to the 
litigation in question. EPA or the Department of Justice may withhold 
or withdraw consent to the proposed settlement if the comments disclose 
facts or circumstances that indicate that such consent is 
inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the 
requirements of the Act. Copies of the settlement are available from 
Phyllis Cochran, Air and Radiation Division (2344), Office of 
[[Page 26882]] General Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460, (202) 260-7606. Written 
comments should be sent to Patricia A. Embrey at the above address and 
must be submitted on or before June 19, 1995.

    Dated: April 27, 1995.
Scott C. Fulton,
Acting General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 95-12368 Filed 5-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
Jackie Hosang LAWSON and Jonathan M. Zang, petitioners, v. FMR LLC, et al.

No. 12-3.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 20, 2013.

Petitioner for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit granted.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1417 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1417

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend the 
            subpart F exemption for active financing income.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 17, 2005

  Mr. McCrery (for himself, Mr. Neal of Massachusetts, Mr. Shaw, Mr. 
  Herger, Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas, Mr. English of Pennsylvania, Mr. 
Weller, Mr. Hulshof, Mr. Lewis of Kentucky, Mr. Foley, Mr. Cantor, Ms. 
Hart, Mr. Beauprez, Mr. McDermott, Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Becerra, and Mr. 
   Crowley) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend the 
            subpart F exemption for active financing income.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PERMANENT SUBPART F EXEMPTION FOR ACTIVE FINANCING INCOME.

    (a) Banking, Financing, or Similar Businesses.--Subsection (h) of 
section 954 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to special 
rule for income derived in the active conduct of banking, financing, or 
similar businesses) is amended by striking paragraph (9).
    (b) Insurance Businesses.--Subsection (e) of section 953 of such 
Code (relating to exempt insurance income) is amended by striking 
paragraph (10) and by redesignating paragraph (11) as paragraph (10).
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years of a foreign corporation beginning after the 
date of the enactment of this Act, and to taxable years of United 
States shareholders with or within which such taxable years of such 
foreign corporation end.
                                 <all>
```
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 21 - 0333 IN RE: THE MARRIAGE OF: TIMOTHY RAY CLARK,

Petit io ner and Appellee, and, J'AIME COLLEEN O'NEILL,

Respondent and Appellant. ORDER OF MEDIATOR APPOINTMENT

This appeal being subject to M.R.App.P. 7, and the parti es having failed to j oint ly and timely select a mediator under M.R.App.P., 7(4),(c), IT IS ORDERED THAT **Daniel B.**  **Bidegaray,** who se name appears next on th e list of attorneys desiring appo int me ntas med iators fo r D omestic Relations appeals which is maintained pursuant to M.R.App.P., 7(4)(e), is hereby appo int ed to co nduct th e mediat io n process required by M.R.App.P., 7(5), and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED th at th e time periods set fo rth in M.R.App.P., 7(5)(d) shall run from the date of this order of appoint me nt . A true copy

of this order is being mailed to counsel of record f or the parti es, or to th e parties individually if not represented by counsel, on the date hereof. DATED thi s August 3, 2021.

Bowen Greenwood , Clerk of the Supreme Court c: Daniel J. Roth, Suzanne C. Marshall, Daniel B. Bidegaray 08/03/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0333
# L_2018079EN.01002401.xml

| 22.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 79/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 79/24

---

COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2018/473

of 19 March 2018

appointing a member, proposed by the Federal Republic of Germany, of the Committee of the Regions

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal of the German Government,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 26 January 2015, 5 February 2015 and 23 June 2015, the Council adopted Decisions (EU) 2015/116 (1), (EU) 2015/190 (2) and (EU) 2015/994 (3) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 26 January 2015, 5 February 2015 and 23 June 2015, the Council adopted Decisions (EU) 2015/116 (1), (EU) 2015/190 (2) and (EU) 2015/994 (3) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020.

| (2) | A member's seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Hans-Josef VOGEL, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

A member's seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Hans-Josef VOGEL,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following is hereby appointed as a member of the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2020:

| — | Dr Eckhard RUTHEMEYER, Bürgermeister der Stadt Soest. |
| --- | --- |

—

Dr Eckhard RUTHEMEYER, Bürgermeister der Stadt Soest.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 19 March 2018.

For the Council

The President

R. PORODZANOV

---

(1)  Council Decision (EU) 2015/116 of 26 January 2015 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020 (OJ L 20, 27.1.2015, p. 42).

1

(2)  Council Decision (EU) 2015/190 of 5 February 2015 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020 (OJ L 31, 7.2.2015, p. 25).

2

(3)  Council Decision (EU) 2015/994 of 23 June 2015 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020 (OJ L 159, 25.6.2015, p. 70).

3

---