alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT ESTEB AN HER

N ANDEZ-GOM EZ, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 12-74060 Age n c y No. A088-741-142 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d

June 25, 2014 ** B e fore : HAW K INS, TALLM AN a nd NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s. Este ba n He rnan de z -Gom e z , a

native an d c itiz e n of M e xic o, pe titions for re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ orde r dism issing his a p pe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s de c i sion de ny i ng his a pplic at ion for a s y lum , withholding of re m ova l, a

nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Agai nst Torture(“ C AT” ). W e have 

# FIL ED JUN 30 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for substa ntia l e vide n c e the fa c tua l findings, W

ak k ary v . Holde r , 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th C ir. 2009), a nd we de ny

the pe tition for re vie w. The re c ord doe s not c om

pe l the c onc lusion tha

t He rnan de z -Gom e z ’ s untim e l y a sy lum a pplic ation is e xc use d by

c ha nge d or e xtra o rdina

ry c irc um s ta nc e s . Se e8 C .F.R . §§ 1208.4(a)(4), (5); se ealso Ramadan v. Gonzale s , 479 F.3d 646, 657-58 (9th C ir. 2007) (pe r c uriam ). W ith re spe c t to withholding of re m ova l, substa

ntia l e vide nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s finding tha

t He rnande z -Gom e z fa ile d to e s ta blish a ne xus be twe e n

any ha rm he fe ars a

nd a prote c te d ground. Se eZe tino v . Holde r , 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th C ir. 2010); se e also Parussimov a v . Muk ase y , 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th C ir. 2009) (the REAL ID Ac t

“ re quire s tha

t a prote c te d ground repre s e nt ‘ o ne c e ntra l re a s on’ for an a sy lum

a pplic a nt’ s pe rse c ution” ). Fina lly , substa

ntia l e v ide nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s de nia l of He rnande z -Gom e z ’ s C AT c la im be c a use he fa ile d to show it is m ore like ly tha n not tha t he would betorture d

if re turne d to M e xic o. Se eZhe ng v . Holde r , 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th C ir. 2011). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 2 - 7 4 0 6 0 2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

STEFON THOMAS LANDING,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 917 MAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 22nd day of May, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2366 

To extend the current Department of Defense telecommunications benefit 

program through the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation 

Enduring Freedom and to provide for the application of the program 

to other contingency operations. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 16, 2005 

Mr. FILNER (for himself, Mr. PETRI, Mr. SHAYS, Mrs. TAUSCHER, Mr. SNYDER, Mr. RYAN of Ohio, and Mr. STRICKLAND) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To extend the current Department of Defense telecommunications benefit program through the end of Operation 

Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom and 

to provide for the application of the program to other 

contingency operations. 

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 ‘‘Troops Phone Home 

5 Free Extension Act’’. 
2 

•HR 2366 IH 

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE TELE2 COMMUNICATIONS BENEFIT PROGRAM. 

3 (a) TERMINATION AT END OF CONTINGENCY OPER4 ATION.—Subsection (c) of section 344 of the National De5 fense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 

6 108–136; 117 Stat. 1449), as amended by section 341 of 

7 the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization 

8 Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108–375; 118 Stat. 

9 1857), is further amended by striking ‘‘terminate on Sep10 tember 30, 2006’’ and inserting ‘‘terminate with respect 

11 to a contingency operation on the date that is 60 days 

12 after the date on which the Secretary determines that the 

13 contingency operation has ended’’. 

14 (b) APPLICATION TO OTHER CONTINGENCY OPER15 ATIONS.—Such section is further amended— 

16 (1) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘Operation 

17 Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom’’ 

18 and inserting ‘‘a contingency operation’’; and 

19 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub20 section: 

21 ‘‘(g) CONTINGENCY OPERATION DEFINED.—In this 

22 section, the term ‘contingency operation’ has the meaning 

23 given that term in section 101(a)(13) of title 10, United 

24 States Code. The term includes Operation Iraqi Freedom 

25 and Operation Enduring Freedom.’’. 
3 

•HR 2366 IH 

1 (c) EXTENSION TO HOSPITALIZED MEMBERS.—Sub2 section (a) of such section is further amended— 

3 (1) by striking ‘‘As soon as possible after the 

4 date of the enactment of this Act, the’’ and inserting 

5 ‘‘The’’; and 

6 (2) by adding at the end the following new sen7 tence: ‘‘As soon as possible after the date of the en8 actment of the Troops Phone Home Free Extension 

9 Act, the Secretary shall extend such telecommuni10 cations benefit to members of the Armed Forces 

11 who, although no longer covered by the preceding 

12 sentence, are hospitalized as a result of wounds or 

13 other injuries incurred while serving in direct sup14 port of a contingency operation.’’. 

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 746 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 746

To repeal provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 
                            Protection Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                April 6 (legislative day, April 5), 2011

  Mr. Shelby (for himself, Mr. DeMint, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Coburn, Mr. 
Corker, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Ensign, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Inhofe, 
Mr. Isakson, Mr. Johanns, Mr. Johnson of Wisconsin, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Kyl, 
 Mr. Lee, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Moran, Mr. Paul, Mr. Risch, Mr. Sessions, 
   Mr. Thune, Mr. Toomey, Mr. Vitter, and Mr. Wicker) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                  Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To repeal provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 
                            Protection Act.

    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 ``Dodd-Frank Repeal Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL.

    Effective on the date of enactment of this Act, titles I through XV 
of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act 
(Public Law 111-203) are repealed, and the provisions of law amended or 
repealed by such titles are restored or revived as if such Act had not 
been enacted.
                                 <all>
```
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MIRNA MARICELA VASQUEZ

MEDRANO; et al ., Petitioners,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 20

- 72381 Agency Nos. A208

- 541

- 632 A208

- 541

- 633

MEMORANDUM *

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

Submitted March 14, 2023 * *
Before: SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.
Mirna Maricela Vasquez

- Medrano and her minor child, native s and citizen s of El Salvador , 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 application for asylum , and Vasquez

- Medrano’s applications for

* 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

MAR 17 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20-72381 withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standa rds governing adverse credibility determinations under the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder , 590 F.3d 1034, 1039‐40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies between Vasquez

- Medrano’s testimony and documentary
evidence , and omissions in her declaration

. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the totality of the circumstances) ; see also
Mukulumbutu v. Barr , 977 F.3d 924, 926

- 27 (9th Cir. 2020) (inconsistencies and omissions supported adverse credibility determination)

. Vasquez

- Medrano’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS , 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s
determination that Vasquez

- Medrano did not present documentary evidence t hat would otherwise establish her eligibility for relief

. See Garcia v. Holder , 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014) (applicant ’ s documentary evidence was insufficient to rehabilitate his testimony or independently support his claim ). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, petitioners’ asylum claim, and Vasquez

- Medrano’s
withholdi ng of removal claim , fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).3 20

- 72381 Because Vasquez

- Medrano does not contest the BIA’s determination that

s he did not challenge the IJ ’ s denial of CAT protection , we do not address it

. See Lopez

- Vasqu ez v. Holder , 706 F.3d 1072, 1079

- 80 (9th Cir. 2013)

. Vasquez

- Medrano’s opposed motion to remand this case to the BIA (Docket Entry No. 23 ) is denied. The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### In the Matter of James A. D’Esposito, an Attorney, Respondent. Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, Petitioner.

Second Department,

July 15, 1985

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Frank*A. *Finnerty, Jr. (Robert P. Guido*of counsel), for petitioner.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

The respondent was admitted to practice by this court on February 23, 1972. On February 25, 1985, respondent pleaded guilty to grand larceny in the second degree (Penal Law § 155.35), a class D felony, in the County Court, Suffolk County. On April 11, 1985, respondent was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment to be served concurrently with and as a condition of a term of five years’ probation, and to make restitution totaling $117,000.

Pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4), upon his conviction of a felony, the respondent ceased to be an attorney and counselor-at-law in this State.

Accordingly, the petitioner’s motion is granted. Respondent is disbarred and the clerk of this court is directed to strike the respondent’s name from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law forthwith.

Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Mangano, Gibbons and Niehoff, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 21.1

List of Subsidiaries of Pacific Energy Partners, L.P.

The following is a list of subsidiaries of Pacific Energy Partners, L.P. The list reflects the names under which each subsidiary does business.

|Subsidiary                               |  | Jurisdiction of incorporation
|---------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Aurora Pipeline Company Ltd.             |  | Nova Scotia, Canada          
|Pacific Energy Group LLC                 |  | Delaware, USA                
|Pacific Marketing and Transportation LLC |  | Delaware, USA                
|Pacific Pipeline System LLC              |  | Delaware, USA                
|Pacific Terminals LLC                    |  | Delaware, USA                
|Pacific Energy Finance Corporation       |  | Delaware, USA                
|PEG Canada, L.P.                         |  | Delaware, USA                
|PEG Canada GP LLC                        |  | Delaware, USA                
|Ranch Pipeline LLC                       |  | Delaware, USA                
|Rangeland Marketing Company              |  | Nova Scotia, Canada          
|Rangeland Northern Pipeline Company      |  | Nova Scotia, Canada          
|Rangeland Pipeline Company               |  | Nova Scotia, Canada          
|Rangeland Pipeline Partnership           |  | Alberta, Canada              
|Rocky Mountain Pipeline System LLC       |  | Delaware, USA                



QuickLinks
EXHIBIT 99.1



                             CERTICATION 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 Amanasu Technologies Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year-ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on  the  date  hereof  (the "Report"), I,
Masafumi Hata , Chairman, President, Secretary 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:

          1.   I  have  reviewed  the  Report;

          2.   based  on  my  knowledge,  the Report does not contain any untrue
               statement  of  a  material  fact or omit to state a material fact
               necessary  to  make  the  statements  made,  in  light  of  the
               circumstances  under  which  such  statements  were  made,  not
               misleading  with respect to the period covered by the Report; and

          3.   based  on  my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and other
               financial  information  included in the Report, fairly present in
               all  material  respects  the  financial  condition,  results  of
               operations,  and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the
               periods  presented  in  the  Report.


/s/  Masafumi Hata
-----------------
Masafumi Hata,  Chairman,  President
Secretary  and  Chief  Financial  Officer
(Principal  Executive  Officer)
(Principal  Financial  Officer)
**Exhibit 4.(b)(i)**

** **

|  |   |
|--|--------|

** **

|  |   |
|--|--------|

** **

|  |   |
|--|--------|

** **

|  |   |
|--|--------|

** **

|  |   |
|--|--------|

** **

|  |   |
|--|--------|

** **

|  |   |
|--|--------|

** **

|  |   |
|--|--------|

** **

|  |   |
|--|--------|

** **

|  |   |
|--|--------|

** **

|  |   |
|--|--------|

** **

|  |   |
|--|--------|

** **

|  |   |
|--|--------|

** **

|  |   |
|--|--------|

** **

|  |   |
|--|--------|

** **

|  |   |
|--|--------|

** **

|  |   |
|--|--------|

** **

|  |   |
|--|--------|

** **

|  |   |
|--|--------|

** **

|  |   |
|--|--------|

** **

|  |   |
|--|--------|

** **

|  |   |
|--|--------|

** **

|  |   |
|--|--------|

** **

|  |   |
|--|--------|

** **

|  |   |
|--|--------|

** **

|  |   |
|--|--------|

** **

|  |   |
|--|--------|

** **

|  |   |
|--|--------|

** **

|  |   |
|--|--------|

** **

|  |   |
|--|--------|

** **

|  |   |
|--|--------|

** **

|  |   |
|--|--------|

** **

|  |   |
|--|--------|

** **

|  |   |
|--|--------|

** **

** **
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

CHRISTOPHER GEORGE WHITE, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 17-1239 

(D.C. No. 1:15-CR-00468-RBJ-1) 

(D. Colo.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before BRISCOE, HARTZ, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Christopher George White pleaded guilty to six counts of coercion and 

enticement of a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). He was sentenced to 

360 months in prison. He appeals that sentence even though his plea agreement 

included a broad waiver of his appellate rights. The government has moved to 

enforce the appeal waiver under United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 

2004) (en banc) (per curiam). Through his counsel, Mr. White concedes that the 

waiver bars his appeal. Based on this concession and our independent review of the 

record, we grant the government’s motion and dismiss the appeal. 

Entered for the Court 

Per Curiam 

 *

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines 

of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for 

its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

December 18, 2017

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
# L_2008155EN.01000701.xml

| 13.6.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 155/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 155/7

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 528/2008

of 12 June 2008

fixing the maximum export refund for white sugar in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 900/2007

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (1), and in particular the second subparagraph and point (b) of the third subparagraph of Article 33(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 900/2007 of 27 July 2007 on a standing invitation to tender to determine refunds on exports of white sugar for the 2007/08 marketing year (2) requires the issuing of partial invitations to tender. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 900/2007 of 27 July 2007 on a standing invitation to tender to determine refunds on exports of white sugar for the 2007/08 marketing year (2) requires the issuing of partial invitations to tender.

| (2) | Pursuant to Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 900/2007 and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the partial invitation to tender ending on 12 June 2008, it is appropriate to fix a maximum export refund for that partial invitation to tender. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Pursuant to Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 900/2007 and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the partial invitation to tender ending on 12 June 2008, it is appropriate to fix a maximum export refund for that partial invitation to tender.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the partial invitation to tender ending on 12 June 2008, the maximum export refund for the product referred to in Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 900/2007 shall be 32,350 EUR/100 kg.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 13 June 2008.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 12 June 2008.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 58, 28.2.2006, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1260/2007 (OJ L 283, 27.10.2007, p. 1). Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 will be replaced by Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1) as from 1 October 2008.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 196, 28.7.2007, p. 26. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 148/2008 by Commission Regulation (OJ L 46, 21.2.2008, p. 9).

2

---
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of AFV Solutions, Inc.(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2004, as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),I, Rosemary Williams, President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of 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.

 

/s/ Rosemary Williams                                    

Rosemary Williams

President and Principal Financial Officer

May 17, 2005
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 05, 2017. 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. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, July 05, 2017 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A17A1525. RANDY WEINSTEIN et al. v. COURTNEY HOLMES et al..
Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion is hereby GRANTED.