alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### David ORLANDO M-R., a.k.a. David Orlando R-M., Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 09-73198.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 12, 2011.*

Filed July 21, 2011.

John Martin Pope, Pope & Associates, PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.

OIL, Dalin Riley Holyoak, Esquire, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief 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 **

David Orlando M-R., a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, *Wakkary v. Holder, 558*F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s determination of the governing statutes and regulations, *see Simeonov v. Ashcroft,*371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir.2004). We review for substantial evidence factual findings. *Wakkary, 558*F.3d at 1056. We deny the petition for review.

Although petitioner contends he is eligible for asylum and withholding of removal based on his membership in a particular social group, he concedes his social group claim fails under recent case law. *See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey,*542 F.3d 738, 745-46 (9th Cir.2008) (rejecting as a particular social group “young men in El Salvador resisting gang violence”); *Barrios v. Holder,*581 F.3d 849, 854-55 (9th Cir.2009) (rejecting as a particular social group “young males in Guatemala who are targeted for gang recruitment but refuse because they disagree with the gang’s criminal activities”). To the extent he asks us to revisit our decisions, we decline to do so. Further, substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that petitioner did not establish gang members targeted him on account of his political opinion. *See Ramos-Lopez v. Holder,*563 F.3d 855, 862 (9th Cir.2009) (rejecting political opinion claim where petitioner “allege[d] no facts in support of a political opinion, actual or imputed, beyond his refusal to join the MS-13”). Accordingly, we deny the petition as to his asylum and withholding claims.

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because petitioner failed to establish it is more *204likely than not that he would be tortured at the instigation or with the acquiescence of the government if removed to El Salvador. *See Silaya v. Mulcasey,*524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir.2008).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF NATIONAL SURGERY CENTERS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       9,721,000
<SECURITIES>                                41,614,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               14,946,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,723,000
<INVENTORY>                                  2,548,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            70,213,000
<PP&E>                                      44,167,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              10,805,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             142,252,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,245,000
<BONDS>                                      6,990,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       119,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 117,550,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               142,252,000
<SALES>                                     77,359,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            77,359,000
<CGS>                                       60,154,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               60,154,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,596,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,616,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             11,993,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 4,616,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          7,377,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                463,000
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 6,914,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .70
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .68
        

</TABLE>
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Commodity Protection and Quality Research: Parlier, CA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Research Units
                        San Joaquin Valley Agricultural Sciences Center
                                    Crop Diseases, Pests and Genetics Research
                                    Water Management Research
                                    National Arid Land Plant Genetic RepositorySearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Pacific West Area Parlier, California San Joaquin Valley Agricultural Sciences Center Commodity Protection and Quality Research People Spencer Walse





- Home Page
- Contact Information
- News Articles
- Publications
- Research Projects
- Commodity Fumigation and Residues
- Agrochemical Fate and Transport
- Natural Products Discovery and Utilization

Natural products Our natural products work focuses on molecules that are released/utilized into the environment as chemical signals for inter-organism communication. Generically termed semiochemicals, these signaling molecules include: pheromones, plant/insect defense compounds, algal neurotoxins, quorum promoters. Curious from an engineering perspective, very little has been published with respect to how tracing the environmental signatures of these natural products can be used to inspire the development of sustainable chemical technologies for agriculture and beyond.


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
#### Bartholomew Hayes *vs.*Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Company.

June 20, 1891.

Obstruction of Street by Railway — Action by Land-Owner — Damages. — Rule in *BraKken*v. *Minn. & 8t. Louis By. Co.,*29 Minn. 41, that where a railway company wrongfully obstructs a street, whereby all access to one’s lot is cut off, it is a case of special or particular injury to the owner of the lot, so-that he may maintain an action, followed; and it does not affect the right of action, though it may the amount of damages, that the obstruction is not continuous,'but only occasional, for several hours at a time.

Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Ramsey county, *Kerr,*J., presiding, overruling a demurrer to the complaint in an action to recover $6,500 damages sustained by plaintiff by reason of the defendant obstructing a street in St. Paul and thereby obstructing the access to plaintiff’s premises.

*J. H. Howe*and *S. L. Perrin,*for appellant.

*J. W. Pinch,*for respondent.

Gilfillan, C. J.

The case stands on a demurrer to the complaint. According to the complaint, Green briar avenue, in the city of St. Paul, runs north and south. The defendant’s road, running east *350and west, crosses that avenue. The plaintiff owns lots on. the avenue north of defendant’s road. The only practicable way of access to the lots is along the avenue, crossing the railroad from the south, the avenue being to the northward practically a *cul de sac.*The defendant has nearly every day, and for several hours at a time, obstructed the avenue by leaving its cars standing upon and across it, so as to prevent passage along it, and cutting off' access to the lots. The case does not differ in any particular going to the right of action from *Brakken*v. *Minn. & St. Louis Ry. Co.,*29 Minn. 41, (11 N. W. Rep. 124,) in which it was .held that, where a wrongful obstruction in a street prevents access to one’s property, the injury he sustains is different, not only in degree, but in kind,-from that sustained by the general public, and he may have an action for such injury. All the decisions in this court have recognized that principle. The only difference between that case and this is in respect to the time of continuance of the obstruction, and that goes only to the amount of the damages.

Order affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 38 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 38

  Congratulating Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, on its 100th anniversary.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 2, 2011

  Ms. Klobuchar (for herself and Mr. Franken) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Congratulating Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, on its 100th anniversary.

Whereas February 5, 2011, marks the 100th anniversary of the establishment of 
        Brooklyn Center, Minnesota;
Whereas in the summer of 1852, individuals came to Brooklyn Center and cleared 
        rich, tillable land to farm and build homes;
Whereas those industrious individuals quickly transformed Brooklyn Center into a 
        prosperous farming community, where Minnesotans grew and gathered 
        harvests that fed countless families throughout the region;
Whereas Brooklyn Center was incorporated as a village in 1911, became a city in 
        1967, and continues to be a community where all residents can feel proud 
        to live, work, and raise their families;
Whereas Brooklyn Center has successfully balanced economic growth and business 
        development with an enduring focus on family values and small town 
        charm;
Whereas, as of the date of agreement to this resolution, Brooklyn Center boasts 
        522 acres of parks and nature centers, a first-rate education system, 
        quality health care options, accessible transportation, and the historic 
        Earle Brown Heritage Center; and
Whereas Brooklyn Center is a city with a proud history and a strong place in the 
        heritage of the State of Minnesota and the United States: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) congratulates Brooklyn Center, Minnesota on its 100th 
        anniversary; and
            (2) commends the Minnesotans who have made Brooklyn Center, 
        Minnesota ``A Great Place to Start and a Great Place to Stay''.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Samuel Wright, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a *838judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldstein, J.), rendered December 15, 1981, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

It is well established that decisions regarding withdrawal of guilty pleas rest within the sound discretion of the trial court *(People v Francis,*38 NY2d 150, 153-156; *People v Tinsley,*35 NY2d 926, 927). The court did not abuse its discretion in denying, after a hearing, defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea of guilty. The plea minutes establish that the plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered with the assistance of counsel. We further note that defendant had two prior felony convictions rendered upon pleas of guilty and made only a conclusory, unsupported allegation of innocence in support of his request to withdraw this plea. Mollen, P. J., Niehoff, Rubin and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-50747

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

San Juan Barboza-Rodriguez, also known as San Juan 

Barboza Rodriguez, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:17-CR-171-1

Before Jolly, Elrod, and Graves, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

San Juan Barboza-Rodriguez appeals the sentence imposed following 

his conviction for possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of 

cocaine. He contends that the district court plainly erred by ordering a 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 10, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-50747 Document: 00515559272 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/10/2020
No. 19-50747

2

special condition of supervised release requiring him to undergo mental 

health treatment. The Government, conceding error, asks us to strike the 

condition, reform the written judgment, and affirm as modified. 

The district court did not explain how its imposition of the mental 

health treatment condition was reasonably related to any of the 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) factors, and the court’s reasoning cannot be inferred from the 

record. See United States v. Alvarez, 880 F.3d 236, 239-40 (5th Cir. 2018). 

We thus conclude that Barboza-Rodriguez has shown clear or obvious error. 

See id. at 240-41. Barboza-Rodriguez has further shown that the error 

affected his substantial rights because he must pay for the costs of the 

treatment, it may require a significant time commitment, and it creates a 

possibly unwarranted perception that he requires treatment. See id. at 241. 

Because of the significant autonomy and privacy concerns, we exercise our 

discretion to remedy the error. See id. at 242.

Accordingly, we GRANT the Government’s motion, MODIFY the 

judgment to strike the special condition of release requiring BarbozaRodriguez to undergo mental health treatment, and AFFIRM the judgment 

as modified. See 28 U.S.C. § 2106. The Government’s alternative motion 

for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED AS MOOT.

Case: 19-50747 Document: 00515559272 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/10/2020
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 405 

Authorizing the taking of a photograph in the Chamber of the United States 

Senate. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 22, 2012 

Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. MCCONNELL) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Authorizing the taking of a photograph in the Chamber 

of the United States Senate. 

1 Resolved, That paragraph 1 of rule IV of the Rules 

2 for the Regulation of the Senate Wing of the United 

3 States Capitol and Senate Office Buildings (prohibiting 

4 the taking of pictures in the Senate Chamber) be tempo5 rarily suspended for the sole and specific purpose of per6 mitting the Senate Photographic Studio to photograph the 

7 United States Senate in actual session on Tuesday, March 

8 27, 2012, at the hour of 2:15 p.m. 

9 SEC. 2. The Sergeant at Arms of the Senate is au10 thorized and directed to make the necessary arrangements 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•SRES 405 ATS 

1 therefore, which arrangements shall provide for a min2 imum of disruption to Senate proceedings. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 24-0247

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

HARRY RICHARDS,

Defendant and Appellant.

GRANT

Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the 

Appellant is given an extension of time until September 9, 2024, to 

prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s opening brief.

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

August 6 2024

08/06/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0247
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-50181

Conference Calendar

 

GARY STANBERRY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

A. BRYANT, Dentist;

M. HILL, Field Lt.;

J.L. CRAIG, Case Manager,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. W-95-CV-40

- - - - - - - - - -

October 23, 1996

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gary Stanberry, #298298, appeals the magistrate judge’s

dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit on the ground that the

defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, arguing that the

defendants demonstrated deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs and subjected

him to working conditions that were inappropriate in light of his medical condition. We have
No. 96-50181

- 2 -

reviewed the record and briefs and AFFIRM the magistrate judge’s

dismissal for essentially the same reasons set forth by the

magistrate judge. Stanberry v. A. Bryant Et Al., No. W-95-CA-040

(W.D. Tex. Feb. 12, 1996). 

Stanberry’s appeal is frivolous and is DISMISSED. Howard v.

King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); see 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

We caution appellant that any additional frivolous appeals filed

by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid

sanctions, appellant is further cautioned to review any pending

appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are

frivolous.

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jamar Sullivan, Appellant.

[948 NYS2d 841]

Motion for writ of error coram nobis denied. Present — Scudder, P.J., Smith, Centra, Carni and Lindley, JJ.
#### Rickey BARNES, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jason GIROIR; Terry Sharp; Joseph Westbrook, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 08-30121

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 12, 2009.

Rickey Barnes, Angola, LA, pro se.

*175Stacey Wright Johnson, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Louisiana, Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendants-Appellants.

Before SMITH, STEWART, and SOUTHWTCK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The defendants appeal the district court’s denial of summary judgment. Defendants sought summary judgment based in part on qualified immunity. Where the district court has denied summary judgment on the ground that material issues of fact exist as to the plaintiffs claims, this court lacks jurisdiction to review the court’s determination that a genuine fact issue exists. *Ramirez v. Knoulton,*542 F.3d 124, 127-28 (5th Cir.2008) (citations omitted).

Appeal DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under tile limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of

-- 3 Diar, LLC Under ContractNo. SIL 10-246 APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: ) ) ) ) )

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 61362

Mr. Robyn D. Cherry

Director Raymond M. Saunders, Esq.

Army ChiefTrial Attorney MAJ Bruce H. Robinson, JA

Trial Attorney ORDER OF DISMISSAL The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. Dated: 3 April 2018

dministrative Judge Chairman Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCA No. 61362, Appeal of3 Diar, LLC, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:

JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals