alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Andree SUSANTO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-71586.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 12, 2011.*

Filed July 19, 2011.

Patrick Ontiveros Cantor, Esquire, But-tar & Cantor, LLP, Tukwila, WA, for Petitioner.

OIL, Norah Ascoli Schwarz, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Jane Tracey Schaffner, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, District Director, Esquire, Seattle, WA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

*145Before: 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 **

Andree Susanto, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, *Wakkary v. Holder,*558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009), and deny the petition for review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that the attack and robbery Susanto endured, the incident when individuals banged on the gate to his family’s property and threw rocks at his home, and the incident when some individuals beat someone at his church, even when considered cumulatively, rise to the level of persecution. *See id.*at 1059-60; *Khup v. Ashcroft,*376 F.3d 898, 903-04 (9th Cir.2004) (finding that where “reasonable minds could differ” on whether a petitioner has endured persecution, “the record does not compel a finding that it does”). In addition, even as a member of a disfavored group, the record does not compel the conclusion that Susanto demonstrated a sufficiently individualized threat of persecution to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. *Cf. Sael v. Ashcroft,*386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir.2004). Further, the record also does not compel the conclusion that there is a pattern or practice of persecution against ethnic Chinese Christians in Indonesia. *See Wakkary,*558 F.3d at 1060-62. Accordingly, Susanto’s asylum claim fails.

Because Susanto failed to establish his eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to meet the higher standard of eligibility for withholding of removal. *See Zehatye v. Gonzales,*453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006).

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Susanto did not establish a clear probability of torture upon return to Indonesia. *See Wakkary,*558 F.3d at 1067-68. Accordingly, his CAT claim fails.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

RICHARD L. MARTIN AND TWILA J. MARTIN, HUSBAND AND WIFE, AND

MARLIN L. MARTIN AND MARLENE B. MARTIN, HUSBAND AND WIFE

v.

HEIDELBERG TOWNSHIP ZONING
HEARING BOARD

v. :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 408 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from
the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 19th day of December, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

. HEIDELBERG TOWNSHIP

PETITION OF: RICHARD L. MARTIN AND TWILA J. MARTIN, HUSBAND AND WIFE,

AND MARLIN L. MARTIN AND MARLENE B. MARTIN, HUSBAND AND WIFE
Exhibit 99.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                PURSUANT TO THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,
                            RULES 13a-14 AND 15d-14
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of American Soil Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Carl P. Ranno, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify,
pursuant to Rules 13a-14 and 15-d14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
adopted pursuant to ss.302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

I have reviewed the Report;

Based upon my knowledge, the Report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading;

Based upon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in the Report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company, as of, and for,
the periods presented in the Report;

I and the other certifying officers of the Company:

are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures for the Company; have designed such disclosure controls and
procedures to ensure that material information is made known to us, particularly
during the period in which the Report is being prepared; have evaluated the
effectiveness of the Company's disclosure controls and procedures within 90 days
of the date of the Report; and have presented in the Report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on the
required evaluation.

I and the other certifying officers have disclosed to the Company's auditors and
to the audit committee of the board of directors (or persons fulfilling the
equivalent function):

all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls (a
pre-existing term relating to internal controls regarding financial reporting)
which could adversely affect the Company's ability to record, process, summarize
and report financial data and have identified for the Company's auditors any
material weaknesses in internal controls; and any fraud, whether or not
material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant
role in the Company's internal controls.

I and the other certifying officers have indicated in the Report whether or not
there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that
could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of their
evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses.

/s/ Carl P. Ranno
--------------------------
Carl P. Ranno,
Chief Executive Officer and President
February 18, 2003
Former President George W. Bush was named as the original 1

lead respondent in this case. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 25(d), the Court automatically substitutes his successor,

President Barack H. Obama, as the new lead respondent.

On January 22, 2009, Petitioner Hamdoon requested [Dkt. 2

No. 258] to Join Petitioner Bawazir’s Motion, and the request was

(continued...)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

______________________________

MOHAMMED AL-ADAHI, et al., :

:

Petitioners, :

:

v. : Civil Action No. 05-280 (GK) 

 :

BARACK H. OBAMA, et al., :

1

:

Respondents. :

______________________________:

ORDER

Petitioners Mohammad Ali Abdullah Bawazir (ISN 440) and Zahir

Omar Khamis Bin Hamdoon (ISN 576) have been detained at the United

States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, since shortly after the

terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. They both have habeas

corpus petitions pending before the Court. Petitioners bring this

action against Respondents in order to enjoin certain treatment

that they are undergoing as a result of the voluntary hunger

strikes they have undertaken to protest their lengthy detentions

without judicial scrutiny of the legality of such detentions.

The matter is before the Court on Petitioners’ Renewed

Emergency Motion for Injunction Against Further Torture of Mohammed

Bawazir (“Renewed Emergency Mot.”) [Dkt. No. 234]. Upon 2
(...continued) 2

granted. See Minute Order, Jan. 26, 2009.

consideration of the Motion, Opposition, Reply, supplemental

filings, oral argument, and the entire record herein, and for the

reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion,

Petitioners’ Renewed Emergency Motion is denied.

February 10, 2009 /s/ 

Gladys Kessler

United States District Judge

Copies via ECF to all counsel of record
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
ROYAL TOWING, INC., an Illinois
corporation, RICK GRAVES and
CHRISTINE GRAVES,
Plaintiffs,
vs. No. 03 C 4925

CITY OF HARVEY, a municipal
corporation, et al.,

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Rick Graves moves for clarification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

60(b) of our Memorandum Opinion and Order dated June 24, 2005. Royal Towing, Inc. v.

City of Harvey, 2005 WL 15631198 at *1 (N.D.IIL 2005). In that order we denied the parties’

cross motions for summary judgment on plaintiff's claim for administrative review of the

Harvey Police Pension Board’s termination of his disability benefits. Under the Hlinois

Administrative Review Act, a reviewing court may only reverse a pension board’s factual

findings if they are against the manifest weight of the record. 735 ILCS 5/3-110; see

International College of Surgeons v. City of Chicago, 153 F.3d 356, 364-65 (7" Cir. 1998).

After analyzing the record we determined that we could not conduct a meaningful review of

the Board’s findings in light of its failure to explain the reasoning for its decision. We
remanded the case to the Board for “further proceedings.”

Plaintiff recently learned that pursuant to our order the Pension Board now intends to

reconvene the hearing on plaintiff's disability status and take testimony from at least one


No. 03 € 4925, Page 2

doctor who examined him. Plaintiff argues that the Board should not be able to supplement
the record with more evidence, but rather should be limited to explaining its decision based
on the record that exists. Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, we did not intend the Board’s
“further proceedings” to be limited to the issuance of a more detailed decision terminating
plaintiff's benefits. Upon remand, the Board is free to reassess the evidence on record and its
ultimate decision. In that process it may determine that it needs more evidence in order to
issue a sound opinion with an articulable basis. Thus, the Board may reconvene the hearing
and supplement the evidentiary record.

Plaintiff's motion appears born out of a concern that the Board intends to call only one
additional witness to testify, Dr. Mercier, the lone doctor of five, who believes plaintiff is able
to perform unrestricted police work. Plaintiff implies that Dr. Mercier’s testimony before the
Board will provide it with a justification for valuing his opinion over the opinions of the other
doctors. We simply note that, were this the case, the Board’s failure to hear testimony from
the other four doctors would weigh against the reasonableness of its reliance on Dr. Mercier’s
minority opinion.

CONCLUSION
In its further proceedings on remand, the Harvey Police Pension Board may

supplement the record concerning plaintiff's eligibility for disability benefits.

JAMES B. MORAN
nior Judge, U. S. District Court

Bing. [_, 2005.
Case: 1:01-cv-07716 Document #: 11 Filed: 10/23/02 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:33
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22 - 0024 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. SLADE ALLEN CLAWSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including April 26, 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 6 2023

04/06/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0024
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 63 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.Con.Res.63
                                     Agreed to December 19, 2012        

                      One Hundred Twelfth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
            the third day of January, two thousand and twelve

                          Concurrent Resolution

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That the Secretary of the Senate is requested to return to the House of 
Representatives the enrolled bill (S. 2367, an Act to strike the word 
``lunatic'' from Federal law, and for other purposes). Upon the return 
of such bill, the action of the Speaker of the House of Representatives 
in signing it shall be rescinded. The Secretary of the Senate shall 
reenroll the bill with the following correction: In section 2(b)(1)(B), 
strike ``in subsection (b)'' and insert ``in subsection (j)''.
Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.
Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.
```
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL

FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

_______________________________

BAP NO. MW 99-110

_______________________________

In re: ROBERT J. BRUNO,

Debtor.

_______________________________

SUSAN K. WALTON, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE,

Plaintiff/Appellant,

V.

ROBERT J. BRUNO, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF KAB

REALTY TRUST AND CARLA M. BRUNO, INDIVIDUALLY

AND AS TRUSTEE OF KAB REALTY TRUST,

Defendants/Appellees.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court

for the District of Massachusetts, Western Division

[Hon. James F. Queenan, Jr., U.S. Bankruptcy Judge]

______________________________

Before

GOODMAN, HAINES and DEASY, U.S. Bankruptcy Judges.

______________________________

Jeffrey D. Ganz and Riemer & Braunstein, LLP for Appellant.

Robert V. Eberle for Appellee.

______________________________

March 31, 2000

______________________________
1 Although counsel for both the Appellant and the Appellee

appeared at the hearing on the Appellant’s appeal, counsel for

the Appellee was precluded from presenting argument given that he

failed to file a brief.

PER CURIAM.

On December 1, 1999, the Bankruptcy Court entered a judgment

wherein it found the following: (1) KAB Realty Trust held only

record title to the property located at 6 Wildflower Lane,

Weston, Massachusetts (the “Property”) and that beneficial

ownership of the Property was held by the Debtor and his wife,

Carla M. Bruno; and (2) the Debtor and his wife held such

beneficial ownership as tenants by the entirety. See Judgment

dated December 1, 1999. The Chapter 7 Trustee appeals only the

second ruling contained in the Bankruptcy Court’s judgment; i.e.,

that the Debtor and his wife owned the Property as tenants by the

entirety.1

A review of the record in this proceeding indicates that

little substantive evidence was presented by the parties

concerning the ownership character of the Debtor and his wife’s

interest in the Property. That issue does not appear to have

been addressed by the parties at trial from either a factual or

legal perspective. In addition, the Bankruptcy Court did not

articulate its reasons for concluding that the Debtor and his

wife owned the Property as tenants by the entirety. See, e.g.,

Transcript of Trial at 156-58. Therefore, there is nothing in

the record upon which the Panel may conduct a reasoned review. 
2

 Because the Chapter 7 Trustee does not question the

Bankruptcy Court’s ruling that the Debtor and his wife, as

opposed to KAB Realty Trust, held beneficial ownership of the

Property, this Panel’s decision has no effect on that ruling.

Accordingly, the Bankruptcy Court’s second ruling that the Debtor

and his wife held the property as tenants by the entirety should

be reconsidered against the backdrop of a full record concerning

the issue.2

The Bankruptcy Court’s ruling that the Debtor and his wife

held the property as tenants by the entirety is VACATED and

REMANDED to the Bankruptcy Court for further proceedings

consistent with our decision.
Exhibit 13.1



Credicorp Ltd.



Certification Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)



Pursuant to the requirements
of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Sections 1350(a) and (b)), the undersigned hereby certifies as follows:



| | 1. | I
                                         am the Chief Executive Officer of Credicorp Ltd. (the “Company”).
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To
                                         my knowledge:
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------



| | (A) | The Company’s
                                         Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2016 accompanying this Certification,
                                         in the form filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”),
                                         fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
                                         Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



| | Dated:
    April 27, 2017 |                            
| | ------------------------- | ---------------------------
| | By:                       | /S/
    DIONISIO ROMERO P. 
| | Name:                     | Dionisio
    Romero        
| | Title:                    | Chief
    Executive Officer
Case: 1:02-cv-07771 Document #: 2 Filed: 10/29/02 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:24
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Waterford Gaming Finance Corp.
All amounts are unaudited.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                             100
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   100
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     100
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                          90
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       100
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    74
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    55
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     19
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 19
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        19
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                              NOV-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                                       1,268,751
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,411,318
<ALLOWANCES>                                    48,463
<INVENTORY>                                    274,940
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,109,168
<PP&E>                                         115,478
<DEPRECIATION>                                 239,535
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,874,978
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,075,663
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        20,802
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,774,002
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,874,978
<SALES>                                        136,185
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               836,891
<CGS>                                          534,407
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,189,120
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (3,296)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,467,222)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,467,222)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 24

- 00213

- CV

In re Michael Bullock and The Austin Police Association

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The petition for writ of mandamus is denie d

. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a). We

also lift the temporary stay entered on April 4, 202 4 in this cause.

_______________________ ___________________ Darlene Byrne

, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Smith and Theofanis

Filed: May 3, 2024