alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Oscar Jesus INIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-76459.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*357Submitted Dec. 17, 2008.*

Filed Dec. 26, 2008.

D. Jade Mundel, Marks & Aealin, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.

CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Carl H. McIntyre, Jr., Patricia A. Smith, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: GOODWIN, TROTT, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Oscar Jesus Iniguez, a 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 finding that he abandoned his application for lawful permanent resident cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, *Morales v. Gonzales,*478 F.3d 972, 980 (9th Cir.2007), and we grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings.

The BIA determined that Iniguez’s failure to provide his criminal history record and fingerprints in advance of his removal hearing was a sufficient ground to deem his relief application abandoned. The BIA, however, did not have the benefit of our intervening decision in *Cui v. Mukasey,*538 F.3d 1289 (9th Cir.2008), which held that the denial of a continuance for fingerprint processing prior to April 2005 may be an abuse of discretion. We therefore remand for the BIA to reconsider its dismissal of Iniguez’s appeal. *See id.*at 1292-95; *see also Karapetyan v. Mukasey,*543 F.3d 1118,1129-32 (9th Cir.2008).

In light of our disposition, we need not address Iniguez’s due process contention.

*358PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

**

 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

MAURA BEATRIZ RAMIREZ 

ESCALANTE; et al., 

Petitioners, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 18-71310 

Agency Nos. A208-927-324 

A208-927-325 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 18, 2022**

Before: GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. 

Maura Beatriz Ramirez Escalante, a native and citizen of El Salvador, and 

her minor daughter, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petition pro se for review of 

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an 

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their applications for asylum, 

* 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

JAN 23 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-71310 

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture 

(“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo 

questions of law. Madrigal v. Holder, 716 F.3d 499, 503 (9th Cir. 2013). We 

grant the petition for review and remand.

The agency denied asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection 

based on the determination that both petitioners are natives and citizens of El 

Salvador. The agency failed, however, to acknowledge and address petitioners’ 

claims as to the minor petitioner, who is a native and citizen of Guatemala. See

Rios v. Lynch, 807 F.3d 1123, 1126 (9th Cir. 2015) (failure to address a claim 

“constitutes error and requires remand.”). Thus, we grant the petition for review 

and remand petitioners’ asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims to the 

BIA for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 

537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

The government must bear the costs for this petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
* Pursuant to 5 TH 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 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-50744 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. LUIS MANUEL FLORES-AVILA Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:07-CR-49-ALL Before KING, BARKSDALE, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appeali ng the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Luis Manuel Flores-Avila raises arguments that are foreclosed by Al mendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), whic h held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. See United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), petition for cert. filed (Aug. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D November 8, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-50744

2 28, 2007) (No. 07-6202). The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 683 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.683

                      One Hundred Twelfth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
            the fifth day of January, two thousand and eleven

                                 An Act

 
To provide for the conveyance of certain parcels of land to the town of 
                              Mantua, Utah.

    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 ``Box Elder Utah Land Conveyance 
Act''.
SEC. 2. CONVEYANCE.
    (a) Definitions.--In this section:
        (1) Map.--The term ``map'' means the map entitled ``Box Elder 
    Utah Land Conveyance Act'' and dated June 23, 2011.
        (2) National forest system land.--The term ``National Forest 
    System land'' means the approximately 31.5 acres of National Forest 
    System land in Box Elder County, Utah, that is generally depicted 
    on the map as parcels A, B, and C.
        (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of 
    Agriculture.
        (4) Town.--The term ``Town'' means the town of Mantua, Utah.
    (b) Conveyance.--On the request of the Town submitted to the 
Secretary by the date that is not later than 1 year after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall convey to the Town, without 
consideration and by quitclaim deed, all right, title, and interest of 
the United States in and to the National Forest System land.
    (c) Survey; Costs.--
        (1) In general.--If determined by the Secretary to be 
    necessary, the exact acreage and legal description of the National 
    Forest System land shall be determined by a survey approved by the 
    Secretary.
        (2) Costs.--The Town shall pay the reasonable survey and other 
    administrative costs associated with the conveyance.
    (d) Use of National Forest System Land.--As a condition of the 
conveyance under subsection (b), the Town shall use the National Forest 
System land only for public purposes.
    (e) Reversionary Interest.--In the quitclaim deed to the Town, the 
Secretary shall provide that the National Forest System land shall 
revert to the Secretary, at the election of the Secretary, if the 
National Forest System land is used for a purpose other than a public 
purpose.
    (f) Additional Terms and Conditions.--With respect to the 
conveyance under subsection (b), the Secretary may require such 
additional terms and conditions as the Secretary determines to be 
appropriate to protect the interests of the United States.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      The undersigned, being the Chairman of Kinetek, Inc., an Illinois
corporation (the "Registrant"), hereby certifies that the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q (the "Quarterly Report") of the Registrant for the three and six
months ended June 30, 2006, which accompanies this certification, fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(15 U.S.C. Section 78m (a)) and that the information contained in the Annual
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Registrant.

Date: August 14, 2006

/s/ Thomas H. Quinn
---------------------------------
Thomas H. Quinn
Chairman

                                       20
EXHIBIT 32.2



Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code,

as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United
States Code, the undersigned, Michael V. Valenza, the Senior Vice President-Finance and Chief Financial Officer of Radnor Holdings Corporation (the Company), hereby certifies that:



The Companys quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the most recent fiscal
quarter (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 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 results of operations of the Company.



|                   |  |                                             
|------------------ |  | --------------------------------------------
|Dated: May 7, 2004 |  | /s/ Michael V. Valenza                      
|                   |  | Senior Vice President  Finance and         
|                   |  | Chief Financial Officer                     
|                   |  | (Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)



A signed original of this written
statement 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.
#### Lucien B. Terry et al., Respondents, *v.*Henry Bange, Appellant.

(Argued June 2, 1890;

decided June 17, 1890.)

Appeal from Order of the General Term of the Superior Court of the city of New York, made March 4, 1890, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying a motion to vacate the appointment of a receiver herein.

*Edward Perkins*for appellant.

*William, C. Holbrooh*for respondents.

*Agree to*dismiss appeal; no opinion.

All concur.

Appeal dismissed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Marvin Kenneth MORALES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-41034

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 22, 2011.

Richard John Johnson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Sherman, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Denise S. Benson, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Defender’s *136Office, Sherman, TX, Federal Defender’s Office, Tyler, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KING, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Marvin Kenneth Morales has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Morales has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-3275

___________________________

Henry Alfredo Moran

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner

v.

Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General of the United States

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent

____________

Petition for Review of an Order of the

 Board of Immigration Appeals

____________

 Submitted: September 22, 2016

Filed: September 30, 2016

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SMITH, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Guatemalan citizen Henry Alfredo Moran petitions for review of an order of

the Board of Immigration Appeals upholding an immigration judge’s denial of his

application for asylum and withholding of removal. After careful consideration of

those matters that are properly before us, we conclude that substantial evidence
supports the denial of relief. See Davila-Mejia v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 624, 627, 629

(8th Cir. 2008). The petition is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

-2-
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

      Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of
China  Autoparts,  Inc. (the "Company"),  for the purposes of 18 U.S.C.  Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to the best of his knowledge:

(1) The Annual  Report of the  Company on Form  10-KSB for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Dated: March 30, 2005

/s/ Li Yungao

--------------------------------
Li Yungao
Chief Executive Officer

/s/Chen Weisheng

---------------------
Chen Weisheng
Chief Financial Officer

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to China Autoparts,  Inc. and will be retained by China Autoparts, Inc.
and  furnished  to the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  or its staff upon
request.
#### KIM LIAN BONG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-73137.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 12, 2011.*

Filed July 14, 2011.

*344Houman Varzandeh, VHF Law Group, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.

Joan H. Hogan, Luis E. Perez, Senior Litigation Counsel, Briena Strippoli, Esquire, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los An-geles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Kim Lian Bong, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, *Zehatye v. Gonzales,*453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Bong’s experiences in Indonesia did not rise to the level of persecution. *See Wakkary v. Holder,*558 F.3d 1049, 1059-60 (9th Cir.2009) (being beaten by youths, robbed of sandals and pocket money, and accosted by a threatening mob did not compel a past persecution finding). Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s conclusion that Bong, a Chinese Christian, failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution even under the “disfavored group” analysis. *Cf. Sael v. Ashcroft,*386 F.3d 922, 925 (9th Cir.2004). Accordingly, we deny the petition as to Bong’s asylum claim.

Because Bong failed to show eligibility for asylum, she necessarily failed to *345show eligibility for withholding of removal, which is governed by a more stringent standard of proof. *See Zehatye,*453 F.3d at 1190.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### FAIRBANKS, Respondent, v. HEGEMAN et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

February 6, 1898.)

Action by William Fairbanks against John R. Hegeman and others.

No opinion. Interlocutory judgment affirmed, with costs, with leave to defendants to withdraw their demurrer and answer upon payment of the costs of the demurrer and of this appeal.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 458 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 458

  To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to establish and 
    enforce a maximum somatic cell count requirement for fluid milk.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 2, 2011

Mrs. Gillibrand introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
  referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to establish and 
    enforce a maximum somatic cell count requirement for fluid milk.

    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 ``Milk Quality Standards Act of 
2011''.

SEC. 2. MAXIMUM SOMATIC CELL COUNT.

    Chapter IV of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 
341 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 424. MAXIMUM SOMATIC CELL COUNT.

    ``(a) Maximum Somatic Cell Count.--
            ``(1) In general.--The maximum somatic cell count for all 
        dairy products sold, transported, or offered for sale or 
        transport, in interstate commerce shall be 400,000 cells per 
        milliliter of fluid milk, or equivalent, as determined by the 
        Secretary.
            ``(2) Adjustment.--The Secretary, after consideration of 
        any recommendations submitted by the National Conference on 
        Interstate Milk Shipments, may lower the maximum somatic cell 
        count established under paragraph (1).
    ``(b) Calculation.--The Secretary shall promulgate regulations to 
require that the calculation of a herd average somatic cell count under 
this section shall be made using a geometric, rather than an 
arithmetic, mean.
    ``(c) Revision.--The Secretary, in consultation with the National 
Conference on Interstate Milk Shipments, shall revise the Pasteurized 
Milk Ordinance to take into account the requirement under subsection 
(a) and any regulations promulgated under subsection (b).
    ``(d) Enforcement.--
            ``(1) In general.--Beginning on the date that is 18 months 
        after the date of enactment of this section, any person that 
        sells, transports, or offers for sale or transport, in 
        interstate commerce any dairy product in violation of 
        subsection (a) shall be subject to a civil penalty in an amount 
        determined in accordance with the regulations promulgated under 
        paragraph (2).
            ``(2) Regulations.--Not later than 18 months after the date 
        of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall promulgate 
        regulations establishing a schedule of civil penalties for 
        violations of subsection (a).''.
                                 <all>
```
**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**

|   | (1) | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|                                    |                                   |                                   |
|-----------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|
|                                    |                                   |
|                               |                              |                              |
| Date: July                13, 2006 | By:                          | /s/ Gerald                Yakatan |
|                                    | Gerald                Yakatan          |
|                                    | Chief                Executive Officer |
#### Samuel Cosentino, Appellant, v Sullivan Papain Block McGrath & Cannavo, P.C., Respondent.

[943 NYS2d 534] —

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), entered May 24, 2010, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant made a prima facie showing that between March 25, 1996, when it obtained an order granting a default judgment in plaintiffs favor against the defendants in the underlying personal injury action, and February 8, 2000, the date of the inquest on damages, the underlying defendants did not possess any property that could have satisfied the judgment *(see Lindenman v Kreitzer,*7 AD3d 30, 35-36 [2004]; *see also Cosentino v Sullivan Papain Block McGrath & Cannavo, P.C.,*47 AD3d 599 [2008]). They had neither insurance covering the building in which plaintiff was injured nor assets with which to respond to the judgment. In opposition, plaintiff failed to present evidence sufficient to raise an issue of fact as to the underlying defendants’ ability to satisfy even a portion of the judgment.

To the extent plaintiff argues that he would have recovered on the judgment but for defendant’s alleged failure to advise him that a viable fraudulent conveyance action existed against the underlying defendants, the argument is unavailing, since there is no record support for any fraudulent conveyance claim *604*(see Cabrera v Ferranti,*89 AD2d 546, 547 [1982], *appeal dismissed*67 NY2d 869 [1986]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Moskowitz, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2010 NY Slip Op 31357(U).]