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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 CHRISTEN, 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 Convention 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 this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAR 22 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 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 consider 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 statute 

makes motive critical, [an applicant] 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 withholding of removal claims fail. 

See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1015-16 (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 would 
3 11-72005

be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Guatemalan government 

if returned. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### In re GRISCOM.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

April 7, 1898.)

1. Appeal—Parties Aggrieved.

Upon appeal from an order vacating a subpoena issued by a justice of the-supreme court, directing a witness to appear and testify before a commissioner in New York appointed by the royal Prussian see-amt in a matter under investigation before it, the appeal was taken in the name of the-German government, the see-amt, and the commissioner. *Held,*that they were not “parties aggrieved,” within the meaning of Code Giv. Proc. § 1294, relating to appeals.

2. Parties—German Government.

The German government cannot be a party, in a legal sense; that name-being but the popular appellation given to a defined national entity or body-politic.

*8943. Appeal—Parties.

An investigating body, being unable to be a party before itself, cannot be a party to an appeal from an order vacating a subpoena issued upon a commission sent out by the body.

Appeal from special term, New York county.

In the matter of Clement A. Griscom. Appeal from order setting aside a subpoena. Dismissed.

The royal Prussian see-amt, at the city of Danzig, issued a commission to an attorney in New York, appointing him a commissioner, and empowering him to examine one Griscom in a matter under investigation by the see-amt. Upon the commission and other papers, a justice of the supreme court issued a subpoena requiring Griscom to appear and testify. Subsequently, upon the latter’s motion, an order was entered vacating and setting aside the subpoena; and from the latter order an appeal was taken in the name of the German government, the Danzig see-amt, and the commissioner.

Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and BARRETT, RUMSEY,

McLaughlin, and patterson, jj.

R. Dulon, for appellant.

C. M. Hough, for respondent.

BARRETT, J.

Under section 1294 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is only “a party aggrieved” by an order of the special term who may appeal therefrom. There is no such party here. The German government is not a party to the proceeding,, either here or abroad. Indeed, there is no such party, in a legal sense, as the German government. That is but the popular appellation given to a defined national entity or body politic. Nor is the see-amt a party. It is the investigating body. And such a body cannot be a party before itself. If it cannot be a party before itself, it cannot well be a party here. Lastly, the commissioner is not in any sense a party. It is quite clear, therefore, that there is no party aggrieved by the order appealed from, within the meaning of the Code, and consequently the appeal must be dismissed. All concur.
United States District Court

Northern District of Indiana

Hammond Division

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 

v. Case No. 2:16-CR-62 JVB

MARVEL D. MALONE

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate

Judge on a plea of guilty by Defendant Marvel D. Malone (DE 23) filed on August 3, 2016. No

objections have been filed to Magistrate Judge Rodovich’s findings and recommendations. 

Accordingly, the Court now ADOPTS those findings and recommendations, ACCEPTS the

guilty plea of Defendant Marvel D. Malone, and FINDS the Defendant guilty of the offenses

charged in Courts 1 through 5 of the Indictment. 

SO ORDERED on August 22, 2016.

s/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen 

Joseph S. Van Bokkelen

United States District Judge
EXHIBIT 32


                            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 MB Software  Corporation on Form 10-Q
for the period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof,  I, Scott A. Haire,  Chief Executive  Officer and
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     The Report fully complies with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

       The information  contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

May 13, 2008

/S/ Scott A. Haire
------------------
Scott A. Haire,
Chairman of the Board,
Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
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 Annual Report of
Westwood Holdings Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, William R. Hardcastle, Jr., 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, to the best of my knowledge:

(1) The 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: February 25, 2010



/s/ William R. Hardcastle, Jr.William R. Hardcastle, Jr.Chief Financial Officer


A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Westwood Holdings Group, Inc. and will be retained by Westwood Holdings Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request. The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2137 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 5-Cyclopropyl-4-(2-methylsulfonyl-4- 

trifluoromethylbenxoyl)i soxazole (Isoxaflutole). 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 5, 2005 

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

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 5-Cyclopropyl-4-(2- 

methylsulfonyl-4-trifluoromethylbenxoyl)i soxazole 

(Isoxaflutole). 

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

3 SECTION 1. 5-CYCLOPROPYL-4-(2-METHYLSULFONYL-4- 

4 TRIFLUOROMETHYLBENXOYL)ISOXAZOLE 

5 (ISOXAFLUTOLE). 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

7 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

8 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

9 new heading: 
2 

•HR 2137 IH 

‘‘ 9902.06.75 5-Cyclopropyl-4-(2- 

methylsulfonyl-4- 

trifluoromethylbenxoyl)isoxazole (Isoxaflutole) 

(CAS No. 141112–29–0) 

(provided for in subheading 

2934.99.15) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
# C_2008329EN.01000601.xml

| 24.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5195 — Pfizer/SP Assets)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 329/03)

On 27 August 2008, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5195. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5195. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6850
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANTHONY GRANDISON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA97-1297-S; CR-83-200-S) Submitted: April 29, 1998 Decided: May 13, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Grandison, Appellant Pro Se. Andrea L. Smith, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998) and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Grandison , Nos. CR-83-200-S; CA-97-1297-S (D. Md. May 12, and 15, 1997). 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-29-2000
<CASH>                                          648804
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2563445
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     414045
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4446216
<PP&E>                                         1977361
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1394956
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 7239854
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2584505
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       6069094
<OTHER-SE>                                   (1413745)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   7239854
<SALES>                                        4567222
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               4577591
<CGS>                                          2473007
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  4260311
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                8171
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 309109
<INCOME-TAX>                                    142000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             167109
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    167109
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .05


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1606 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1606

     To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to exclude 
    communications over the Internet from the definition of public 
                             communication.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 13, 2005

Mr. Hensarling introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to exclude 
    communications over the Internet from the definition of public 
                             communication.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Online Freedom of Speech Act''.

SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF DEFINITION OF PUBLIC COMMUNICATION.

    Paragraph (22) of section 301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act 
of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(22)) is amended by adding at the end the 
following new sentence: ``Such term shall not include communications 
over the Internet.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit
23.2
  CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
  We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form
S-8 (Nos. 333-147944) of Procera Networks, Inc. of our report dated February 13,
2006, with respect to the financial statements for the year ended January 1,
2006 of Procera Networks, Inc. included in this Amendment No. 2 to the Annual
Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2007.
  /s/ Burr,
Pilger, & Mayer LLP
 Palo Alto,
California
 March 6,
2009
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

KIRILA FIRE TRAINING )

FACILITIES, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:15-cv-368-JVB-SLC

)

SMITH ERECTORS, INC., )

)

Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Kirila Fire Training Facilities filed a complaint against Defendant Smith

Erectors, Inc., on December 4, 2015, alleging that this Court has diversity jurisdiction pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (DE 1). The complaint recites that Plaintiff is an Ohio corporation with its

principal place of business in Ohio, and that “upon information and belief,” Defendant is an

Indiana corporation with its principal place of business in Indiana. (DE 1 ¶ 3).

Plaintiff’s jurisdictional allegations with respect to Defendant are inadequate. 

“Allegations of federal subject matter jurisdiction may not be made on the basis of information

and belief, only personal knowledge.” Yount v. Shashek, 472 F. Supp. 2d 1055, 1057 n.1 (S.D.

Ill. 2006) (citing Am.’s Best Inns, Inc. v. Best Inns of Abilene, L.P., 980 F.2d 1072, 1074 (7th Cir.

1992)); see Ferolie Corp. v. Advantage Sales & Mktg., LLC, No. 04 C 5425, 2004 WL 2433114,

at *1 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 28, 2004); Hayes v. Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC, No. 02 C 9106, 2003

WL 187411, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 21, 2003). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s “belief” that Defendant is

an Indiana corporation with its principal place of business in Indiana is insufficient. 

Therefore, Plaintiff is ORDERED to supplement the record on or before December 22,
2015, by filing an amended complaint that adequately alleges the citizenship of each party.

SO ORDERED.

Enter for this 8th day of December 2015.

/s/ Susan Collins 

Susan Collins

United States Magistrate Judge

2
Opinion filed November 21 , 201 9



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

____ __ ____ No. 11

- 1 7

- 00 332

- CR

__________ EX PARTE BRANDON JOSEPH ADAMS

On Appeal from the 4 2nd District Court Taylor County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 26,815

- A

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N O N R E M A N D This is an appeal from the denial of a pretrial application for writ of habeas

corpus. Brandon Joseph Adams was i ndict ed for the offense of aggravated assault
of Joe Jeremy Romero

. Adams filed an application for writ of habeas corpus in this
case based u pon a jury’s acquittal of Adams for the offense of aggravated assault in a companion case in which Joe’s brother , Justin Paul Romero, was the complainant.
Adams sought to have the indictment related to the alleged offense against Joe dismissed on double j eopardy grounds based on the doctrine of collateral estoppel.
T he trial court held a hearing and denied the relief requested by Adams

. We affirm.2

On original submission, this court reverse d the trial court and remand ed the

cause with instructions for the trial court to grant habeas relief

. See Ex parte Adams
, 582 S.W.3d 368 (Tex. App.

— Eastland 2018), rev’d , No. PD

- 0711

- 18, 2019 WL 5057265 (Tex. Crim. App. Oct. 9, 2019). The State filed a petition for discretionary review, and t he Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has recently issued an opinion and mandate in which it reversed this court’s June 14, 2018 judgment and remanded the cause to this court for proceedings consistent with the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals. See E

x parte Adams , No. PD

- 0711

- 18, 2019 WL 5057265 (Tex. Crim. App. Oct. 9, 2019). In its opinion, t he Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that “the jury’s ‘Not Guilty’ verdict acquitting [Adams] of aggravated assault against Justin Romero was not a final j ury determination that [Adams] was justified in using force against Joe
Romero to defend [Luke] Hisey” and, thus, that collateral estoppel “ does not apply. ” 2019 WL 5057265, at *7. Because Adams asserted only one issue on appeal and
because the Court of Criminal Appeals resolved that issue against Adams, we no w, in accordance with the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals, overrule Adams’s sole issue on appeal and affirm the order of the trial court. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 31.5.
The cause is re manded to the trial court for further proceedings.

PER CURIAM
November 21 , 201 9 Do not p ublish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey
, C. J. , Stretcher , J., and Wright, S.C.J. 1
Willson, J., not participating.

1 Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, sitting by assignment.
# Unexpected Urgent Refugee and Migration Needs

# Memorandum for the Secretary of State

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 2(c)(1) of the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962 (22 U.S.C. 2601(c)(1)) (MRAA), I hereby determine, pursuant to section 2(c)(1) of the MRAA, that it is important to the national interest to furnish assistance under the MRAA in an amount not to exceed $46 million from the United States Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund for the purpose of meeting unexpected urgent refugee and migration needs, including through contributions to international organizations by the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration of the Department of State, related to the humanitarian needs of vulnerable refugees and migrants in Central America and third countries in the region.

                    You are authorized and directed to submit this determination to the Congress, along with the accompanying Justification, and to publish this determination in the                     *Federal Register*.                

[FR Doc. 2021-13208

Billing code 4710-10-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Purdy Bond, Appellant.

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Irving Lang, J.), rendered on January 14, 1982, unanimously affirmed. Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Sandler, Fein and Milonas, JJ.