alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MYNOR ROLANDO MELGAR

- LOPEZ,

Petitioner,

v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 11

- 72005 Agency No. A070

- 928

- 455

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 15, 2016 ** Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTE N, Circuit Judges. Mynor Rolando Melgar

- Lopez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convent ion Against Torture

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes t his case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAR 22 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 11

- 72005

(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales , 453 F.3d 1182, 1184

- 85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review. We do not conside r the materials Melgar

- Lopez references and submits for the first time with his reply brief. See Fisher v. INS , 79 F.3d 955, 963

- 64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (court’s review is limited to the administrative record)

. Melgar

- Lopez testified he experienced trouble in Guatemala after he refused to hand out political pamphlets during the civil war, and that he was unaware of anyone in particular who might harm him if he returned to Guatemala. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Melgar

- Lopez failed to establish past persecution or a fear of future persecution on account of an enumerated ground. See INS v. Elias

- Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) ( “[S]ince the st atute makes motive critical, [an app licant] must provide some evidence of it, direct or circumstantial.” ). We reject Melgar

- Lopez’s contention that the IJ erred in its analysis. Thus, Melgar

- Lopez’s asylum and wit hholding of removal claims fail.
See Zetino v. Holder , 622 F.3d 1007, 1015

- 1 6 (9th Cir. 2010). Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’ s denial of CAT relief because Melgar

- Lopez failed to show that it is more likely than not that he would3 11

- 72005

be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Guatemalan governm ent if returned

. See Silaya v. Mukasey , 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
_____________ No. 96-2852MN

_____________ Darlow T. Madge; Brian A. * Madge; Lynne Leger, * * Appellants, * * v. * * Appeal from the United States David Lee Lillehaug; Janet Reno;* District Court for the District Paul A. Magnuson; James M. * of Minnesota. Rosenbaum; David S. Doty; * Richard H. Kyle; Michael J. * [UNPUBLISHED] Davis; Donald D. Alsop; Harry * H. MacLaughlin; Robert G. * Renner; Earl R. Larson; West * Publishing Company, * * Appellees. *

_____________ Submitted: December 26, 1996 Filed: January 6, 1997

_____________ Before FAGG, WOLLMAN, and MURPHY, District Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM. Darlow T. Madge, Brian A. Madge, andLynne Leger appeal the district court's order dismissing their action. We conclude the district court's decisionis clearly correct. Assuming but not deciding that appellants' claim against the legal publishing company prese nts an actual controversy, the appellants lack standing to raise the claim. We affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED DECEMBER 22, 2022

NO. 03

- 21

- 00319

- CV

William Cyree , Appellant

v.

Kimberley Kay Cyree , Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3 OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY
BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWI N, BAKER, AND TRIANA

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l cour t on April 13, 2021

. Having

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the C ourt holds that there was no reversible error

in the trial court’s judgment

. Therefore, the C ourt affirms the trial court’s judgment

. The

appellant shall pay all costs rela ting to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
#### McMAIL, Respondent, v. POLIZIO, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 11, 1907.)

Action by Sylvester McMail, an infant, by James McMail, his guardian ad litem, against Dominio Polizio.

No opinion. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.
109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1796

AN ACT

To amend the National Trails System Act to designate the 

route of the Mississippi River from its headwaters in 

the State of Minnesota to the Gulf of Mexico for study 

for potential addition to the National Trails System as 

a national scenic trail, national historic trail, or both, 

and for other purposes.
2

•HR 1796 EH

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Mississippi River Trail 

5 Study Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF ROUTE OF THE MISSISSIPPI 

7 RIVER FOR STUDY FOR POTENTIAL ADDI8 TION TO THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM. 

9 (a) DESIGNATION.—Section 5(c) of the National 

10 Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 1244(c)) is amended—

11 (1) by redesignating the first paragraph after 

12 paragraph (40) as paragraph (41) and, in such 

13 paragraph, by striking ‘‘The’’ and inserting ‘‘LONG

14 WALK TRAIL.—The’’; 

15 (2) by redesignating the second paragraph after 

16 paragraph (40) as paragraph (42); and 

17 (3) by adding at the end the following new 

18 paragraph: 

19 ‘‘(43) MISSISSIPPI RIVER TRAIL.—The route of the 

20 Mississippi River from its headwaters in the State of Min21 nesota to the Gulf of Mexico.’’. 

22 (b) RELATION TO OTHER STUDIES.—The study re23 quired by the amendment made by this section is intended 

24 to complement, and not duplicate, other studies of the sce-
3

•HR 1796 EH

1 nic or historical importance of the Mississippi River that 

2 may be underway or undertaken. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 25, 

2006. 

Attest:

Clerk. 
109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1796

AN ACT

To amend the National Trails System Act to desposes. national historic trail, or both, and for other pur- National Trails System as a national scenic trail, of Mexico for study for potential addition to the headwaters in the State of Minnesota to the Gulf ignate the route of the Mississippi River from its
EXHIBIT M 

Certified copy of State’s Exhibit 47 at the criminal trial of Lana 

Canen in State of Indiana v. Lana R. Canen, Elkhart Circuit Court, 

Cause No. 20C01-0309-MR-155

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL document 42-13 filed 09/10/15 page 1 of 4
f. .rls$iffi +'! r.rtrt":-

ä.ffir,¿'-'Ð Íli$,åi

z. ni'ôr#rN"öí¡f' s.'HftiHii:[îiDoLe tå4ifËffii'p¡¡6 s. nl HT THUMB'

RIGHT PALM

S1

j

I

¡

;

1

,/ il\;

ð

(

iriij;;f,, ;i;1¡1i'r'

' :, . -!":r'-:)!li: !r.'- ' ::!,'::-:i:"ir,i:

: r :. :..ii:ii- 'r

, 

j.:. '::: ¡ '

\

A6 ô3F t s7tì

l#æ7

Labor atory

Item Ët ØØ2 \ù1

q

(p

Elkhart Pol ice Department

illililllllilillllllllillllll llllillllil lilllilillllllilillililillilllll û3?'s 1'"1

\Ð

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL document 42-13 filed 09/10/15 page 2 of 4
--x"- ---**]ffåffi, l

I[:\_.. )

,- .3; :¡ .,.--r:ri;. :.. +rijrl i.:i

; i: .:;., J..r

:,;'lì.: i

ì . i'ii..

Æ

::-:;r-4¿oo

;:"-fj'

'.ii{ft.;

'"i¿:r;k

iii, =",,:::.

'li:,)ìi{¡ ll"i:,ìltt)$tl 1+,".1'q' I

t-:-

,-.ì t¡l:

..1, ,t:. ... '..';

r??;:l¿*;, .-.,i!: ,r : .

'i:'.':

;\

ì.x

c

',riiì*i"

q

(.

--.

firlL qnå- ,,-dI+ I íÐ

'iÆ¡".Si,..*:¡rEÌ:¡f 

I

,È'ltHlffiwz

o

ìqrl,'i ii

,:ñ

X

.:- ':î:i, ¡ñ; rr,-llil

F1.r

iKxr. ñt

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL document 42-13 filed 09/10/15 page 3 of 
jj^\

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

STATE OF INDIANA

COUNTY OF ELKHART

) IN THE ELKHART CIRCUIT COURT

) SS:

) CAUSE NO: 20C01-0409-MR-00118

CERTIFICATE

I, Ann S. Hunsberger, do hereby certify that I

am the Official Court Reporter of the Elkhart Circuit

Court in the above matter, and the foregoing pages

constitute a true and accurate transcript of the

testimony given at said time and place.

I certify that the same was reduced to

typewritten form from my original stenograph notes and/or

electronically recorded equipment by Computer-Aided

Transcription.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand

and seal this 12th day of December, 2005.

Ann S. Hunsberger

Official Court Reporter

Circuit Court

101 North Main Street

Goshen, Indiana 46526

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL document 42-13 filed 09/10/15 page 4 of 4
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1914 

To amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to provide 

that the calculation of the duty imposed on imported cherries that are 

provisionally preserved does not include the weight of the preservative 

materials of the cherries. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 27, 2005 

Mr. HONDA introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 

States to provide that the calculation of the duty imposed 

on imported cherries that are provisionally preserved does 

not include the weight of the preservative materials of 

the cherries. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 1914 IH 

1 SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF CALCULATION OF DUTY IM2 POSED ON IMPORTED CHERRIES THAT ARE 

3 PROVISIONALLY PRESERVED. 

4 (a) AMENDMENTS.—Subheading 0812.10.00 of the 

5 Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended— 

7 (1) in the general subcolumn of the column 1 

8 rate of duty, by inserting ‘‘on drained weight’’ after 

9 ‘‘13.4¢/kg’’; and 

10 (2) in the special subcolumn of the column 1 

11 rate of duty, by inserting ‘‘on drained weight’’ after 

12 ‘‘10¢/kg’’ and ‘‘12¢/kg’’. 

13 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

14 subsection (a) shall be effective for the period beginning 

15 on the date of the enactment of this Act and ending on 

16 the date on which the specific rate of duty involved is re17 duced to free. 

Æ
EXHIBIT
32.1WRITTEN STATEMENT
PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
  (i)
    
    the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30,
2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) and 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(ii)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Dated: August 7, 2009
    
    /S/ Steven F. Udvar-HazySTEVEN F. UDVAR-HAZYDated: August 7, 2009
    
    /S/ Alan H. LundALAN H. LUND -48-
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________ NO . 09 - 21 - 00307 -CR NO . 09 - 21 - 0030 8- CR NO . 09 - 21 - 0030 9- CR NO . 09 - 21 - 00310 - CR

________________ RALPH WILLIAM GALLAGHER , Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

__________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 221st District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No s. 20 - 07 - 08653 - CR , 20 - 07 - 087 04 - CR, 21 - 08 - 10997 - CR, 21 - 08 - 10998 - CR

__________________________________________________________________ ORDER The trial court appointed Mark Phillips to represent Ralph William Gallagher , a

ppellant, o n appeal in four cases. The clerk’s record s in the above styled and numbered cause s w ere filed January 14, 20 22 , and the reporter’s record s were filed February 7, 2022

. On Ju ne 3 , 20 22 , the Court granted a f ourth extension of time to file the brief, noting that the extension was a “ final extension .” On July 11, 2022,2 the appellant’s court

- appointed attorney, Mark Phillips , w as notified that neit h er the brief of the appellant nor a motion for extension of time to file the brief has been filed , and we warned him that unless we received a satisfactory response we would order the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why no brief has been filed. We granted appellant’s request for an additional extension of time to July 26, 2 0 22, to file the appellant’s brief

. Although the brief of the appellant was due to be filed July 26, 2022 , the brief has not been filed. We abate the appeal s and remand the case s to the trial court to conduct a hearing at which a representative of the State, counsel for the appellant, and the appellant shall be present. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)(3). W e direct the trial court to determine whether or not appellant desires to pursue his appeal s . If appellant desires to pursue his appeal s , we direct the trial court to determine why the brief of the appellant has not been filed and whether good cause exists for appointed counsel, Mark Phillips , to be relieved of his duties as appellate counsel and replaced by substitute counsel. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.04(j)(2). If the trial court determines that good cause exists to relieve appointed counsel of his duties, we direct the trial court to appoint substitute counsel. The record of the hearing, including any orders and findings of the trial court judge, shall be sent to the appellate court for filing. The transcription of the court3 reporter’s notes from the hearing and the recommendations of the trial court judge are to be filed on or before August 31 , 20 22

. ORDER ENTERED August 1 , 202 2

. PER CURIAM Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7822

MARK L. MORTON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

DANIEL T. MAHON, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CA-98-1390-AM)

Submitted: April 27, 1999 Decided: May 6, 1999

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark L. Morton, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the order from which Morton appeals was filed on

October 14, 1998, it was entered on the district court’s docket

sheet on October 15, 1998. October 15, 1998 is therefore the

effective date of the district court’s decision. See Fed. R. Civ.

P. 58 and 79(a); see also Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35

(4th Cir. 1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

Mark L. Morton seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Morton v. Mahon, No. CA-98-1390-

AM (E.D. Va. Oct. 15, 1998).* 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
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 WRITTEN STATEMENT
PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
  (i)
    
    the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A
for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with
the requirements of section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934; and(ii)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.
 Dated: August 15, 2005
    
    /S/ Steven F. Udvar-HazySTEVEN F. UDVAR-HAZYDated: August 15, 2005
    
    /S/ Alan H. LundALAN H. LUND
 -33-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-01-2000
<CASH>                                         338,799
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,658,960
<ALLOWANCES>                                   536,000
<INVENTORY>                                  9,181,164
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            19,873,084
<PP&E>                                       6,824,460
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,875,953
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              22,630,169
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       12,314,605
<BONDS>                                      6,697,697
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        45,462
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,573,405
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                22,630,169
<SALES>                                     31,146,993
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            31,146,993
<CGS>                                       22,368,858
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               22,368,858
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               240,164
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             409,111
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,749,700
<INCOME-TAX>                                   673,250
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,076,450
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,076,450
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .25


</TABLE>
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A24E0042. GOLDEN PEANUT COMPANY, LLC et al v. ROSS EDWARD

MASON MILLER, et al.

Uponconsiderationof APPELLANT’SEMERGENCYMOTION inthe above

styled case, it is ordered that the motion is hereby DENIED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office,Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

January 30, 2024

01/30/2024
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 105 (Thursday, June 1, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28634-28636]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-13317]



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

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT


Notice of Request for Expedited Review of New Form RI 38-128

AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (title 
44, U.S. Code, chapter 35), this notice announces a request for an 
expedited review of a new information collection. Form RI 38-128, 
Payment Election Form, provides the opportunity for an annuitant to 
elect Direct Deposit or a paper check. This election is required only 
once: When a person is first put on the annuity roll. If there is no 
evidence that the separating agency gave the person this election, OPM 
must provide this form. As agencies learn to give retiring employees 
this election opportunity, OPM will send fewer election forms; however, 
this form will always be needed for deferred annuitants and survivor 
annuitants.
    Approximately 65,320 RI 38-128 forms will be completed annually. We 
estimate that it takes 30 minutes to fill out the form. The annual 
burden is 32,660 hours.
    A copy of this proposal is appended to this notice.

DATES: Comments on this proposal should be received within three (3) 
calendar days from the date of this publication. OMB has been asked to 
take action within five (5) calendar days from the date of this 
publication.

ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments to--
Lorraine E. Dettman, Retirement and Insurance Service, Operations 
Support Division, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E. Street 
NW., Room 3349, Washington, DC 20415

      and

Joseph Lackey, OPM Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building 
NW., Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503.

FOR INFORMATION REGARDING ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATION--CONTACT: Mary 
Beth Smith-Toomey, Forms Analysis and Design, (202) 606-0623.

United States Office of Personnel Management.
Lorraine A. Green,
Deputy Director.
BILLING CODE 6325-01-M

[[Page 28635]]

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN01JN95.007



[[Page 28636]]

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN01JN95.008


[FR Doc. 95-13317 Filed 5-31-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-01-C
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 Annual Report of Daybreak Oil and Gas, Inc., (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending February 28, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Eric L. Moe, Chief Executive Officer of Daybreak Oil and Gas, Inc. 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 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.



Date:  June 13, 2006



By /s/  ERIC L MOE

Eric L. Moe, Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 99(a)

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

        In connection with the Form 10-QSB of United Financial Banking
Companies, Inc. for the quarter ended June 30, 2002, I, Harold C. Rauner,
President and Chief Executive Officer of United Financial Banking Companies,
Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S)1350, as adopted pursuant to
(S)906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, that:

(1)     such Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2002, 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 such Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended
        June 30, 2002, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
        condition and results of operations of United Financial Banking
        Companies, Inc.


/s/ Harold C. Rauner
Harold C. Rauner
President and Chief Executive Officer

                                       15