alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 08-2701

___________ Isidro Silerio-Nunez, * * Petitioner, * * v. * Petition for Review * Board of Immigration Appeals Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General * of the United States; Janet Napolitano, * [UNPUBLISHED] Secretary of the Department of * Homeland Security, * * Respondents. *

___________ Submitted: May 20, 2010 Filed: May 25, 2010

___________ Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Isidro Silerio-Nunez, a native of Mexico, petitions for review of a July 2008 order of the Board of Immigration Appeal s (BIA), which affirmed an Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) decision finding petitioner rem ovable for being inadmissible at the time of his reentry into the United States. We deny the petition. In November 2000, an IJ found that pe titioner, a lawful permanent resident (LPR), was removable based on his commissi on of an aggravated felony. Pursuant-2- to the IJ’s final order, which rescinded petitioner’s LPR status, petitioner was removed to Mexico. Less than two weeks later, petitioner returned to the United States presenting his LPR identification card to immigration authorities to gain admission. We conclude that substantial eviden ce supports the BIA’s decision. See8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) (inadmissibility based on fraud or willful misrepresentation of material fact to gain admission), § 1182( a)(7)(A)(i)(I) (inadmissibility for failure to have valid immigration document), § 1256(a) (IJ’s order of removal rescinds alien’s status); Escudero-Corona v. INS , 244 F.3d 608, 612 (8th Cir. 2001) (standard of review). Petitioner’s challenge to his 2000 removal order is foreclosed by Silerio-Nunez v. Holder , 356 Fed. Appx. 151 (10th Cir. 2009) (unpublished order). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.

___________________________________
Exhibit 32.1

CEO/CFO Certification Pursuant to § 906 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
§1350)

The undersigned, as the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Pinnacle Bankshares Corporation, respectively,
certify that, to the best of their knowledge and belief, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009, which accompanies this certification, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Pinnacle Bankshares Corporation and subsidiary
at the dates and for the periods indicated.

The foregoing certification is made pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §
1350) and shall not be relied upon for any other purpose. The undersigned expressly disclaim any obligation to update the foregoing certification except as required by law.



|                |  |                                      
|--------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|August 13, 2009 |  | /s/ Robert H. Gilliam, Jr.           
|Date            |  | Robert H. Gilliam, Jr., President and
|                |  | Chief Executive Officer              
|                | 
|August 13, 2009 |  | /s/ Bryan M. Lemley                  
|Date            |  | Bryan M. Lemley, Secretary,          
|                |  | Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
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
 Dairy Forage Research: Madison, WI
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Midwest Area Madison, Wisconsin U.S. Dairy Forage Research Center Dairy Forage Research People & Locations





- Find a person
- Find a location
- ARS Organizational Chart
- People

People and Locations at Madison, Wisconsin   [Expand All] [Collapse All]
  (Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


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
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the
Annual Report of Asta Funding, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KA for the year ended September 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Robert J. Michel, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

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

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and the consolidated result of
operations of the Company for the periods presented.



|                                                                      
|----------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Robert J. Michel                                                  
|Robert J. Michel Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)

Dated: January 27, 2012

This certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not being filed as part of the 10-K as a separate disclosure statement.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

ANTHONY DEGLIOMINI AND KAREN 

DEGLIOMINI,

Petitioners

v.

ESM PRODUCTIONS, INC. AND CITY OF 

PHILADELPHIA,

Respondents

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 376 EAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 28th day of January, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

GRANTED. The issues as stated by Petitioner are:

1. Can the City of Philadelphia contractually immunize itself from tort liability 

for breaching a mandatory public safety duty which has existed for decades 

under common law, and which is now codified and/or imposed under 

Pennsylvania’s Tort Claims Act and Philadelphia’s Home Rule Charter?

2. Does The Phillies’ exculpatory Release immunize the City from liability for 

negligently repairing its road hazard before the parties drafted or entered 

the Release, and long before the event covered by the Release.
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
 Southwest Watershed Research Center: Tucson, AZ
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                                    Software
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    About SWRCSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Pacific West Area Tucson, Arizona SWRC Docs





- Research Overview
- SWRC and Walnut Gulch Experimental Watershed Booklet

Aboutusheadline bar  Leonard Lane collecting a sediment sampleEroding channelMeteorologic station Research at the Southwest Watershed Research Center is conducted in 4 major program areas. Research is supported by the Walnut Gulch Experimental Watershed. **Erosion and Sedimentation********Hydrology********Decision Support Systems****Remote Sensing**  Stock pondRainfall simulatorCollecting data


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
#### Phillip IVALDY, petitioner, v. LORAL SPACE & COMMUNICATIONS LTD., et al.

No. 08-510.

March 9, 2009.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MIGUEL PACHECO-ASCENCIO, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 14-70814 

Agency No. A097-764-958 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted August 30, 2017

Seattle, Washington

Before: HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges, and FOOTE,** District 

Judge.

Miguel Pacheco-Ascencio, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for 

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an 

immigration judge's decision denying his application for withholding of removal 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The Honorable Elizabeth E. Foote, United States District Judge for the 

Western District of Louisiana, sitting by designation.

FILED

OCT 18 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 14-70814 

and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Reviewing the 

agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 

1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), we deny the petition for review.

As to withholding of removal based on past persecution, substantial 

evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that a fundamental change in 

circumstance rebutted the presumption of future persecution. See 8 C.F.R. § 

1208.16(b)(1); see also Singh v. Holder, 753 F.3d 826 (9th Cir. 2014). More than 

two decades have passed since Pacheco has seen his father, and there was no 

evidence that his father would recognize him. Substantial evidence also supports 

the agency’s conclusion that Pacheco did not independently establish a clear 

probability of future persecution. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1185 (9th 

Cir. 2003). In light of these dispositive findings, we reject Pacheco’s argument 

that the agency violated due process by failing to consider a nexus between future 

harm and the social groups he proposed. See Lata v. I.N.S., 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 

(9th Cir. 2000) (noting that a petitioner must show both error and substantial 

prejudice to prevail on a due process challenge).

As to Pacheco’s claim based on his membership in the Tarasco indigenous 

group, substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that it is not more 

likely than not that Pacheco will be persecuted on this basis. Substantial evidence 

also supports the conclusion that Pacheco failed to show a pattern or practice of 
3 14-70814 

persecution against the Tarasco in Mexico. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1061. 

Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the agency's denial of withholding of 

removal.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency's denial of CAT relief because 

Pacheco failed to establish that it is more likely than not he will be tortured with 

the participation or acquiescence of a government official or person acting in an 

official capacity if he returns to Mexico. See id. at 1067-68.

Accordingly, the petition is DENIED.
<PAGE>
 
                                15 October 1997

Alfred Haber Distribution, Inc.
Fred Haber
321 Commercial Avenue
Palisades Park,  NJ  07650

     RE:  AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN ALFRED HABER DISTRIBUTION,
          INC. ("HABER") AND AMERICAN ARTISTS FILM CORPORATION ("AAFC") DATED
          JULY 26, 1994 AS REVISED OCTOBER 10, 1994 (THE "AGREEMENT")

Dear Fred,

     Per our conversation today, this will confirm the amendment mutually agreed
to by both parties for the above-referenced Agreement as follows:

1.  The Term of the Agreement shall be extended from the expiration date of
August 1, 1997 to February 1, 1999.

2.  Any and all monies payable to AAFC under the Agreement shall be divided
equally between AAFC and Greystone Communications, Inc., ("Greystone") with
separate checks for said monies to be issued by Haber to both AAFC and
Greystone.

3.  Except as modified herein, the terms and conditions of the Agreement shall
remain in full force and effect and shall govern the respective rights and
obligations of the parties.

Shinaan Krakowski of Greystone Communications, Inc., has agreed to this
Amendment.

     The parties acknowledge that they are bound by the terms and conditions of
this Amendment by signing as indicated below:

                                              AMERICAN ARTISTS FILM CORPORATION


                                                  /s/ J. Eric Van Atta
                                              By: _____________________________


                                              ALFRED HABER DISTRIBUTION, INC.

                                                  /s/ Joy Haber
                                              By:______________________________
Exhibit
32.1

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

The
following statement is provided by the undersigned to accompany the foregoing Report on Form 10-K/A pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed filed pursuant to any provision of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or any other securities law.

The
undersigned certifies that the foregoing Report on Form 10-K/A fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
Section 78) and that the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Broadway Financial
Corporation as of and for the year ended December 31, 2014.

Date: April 30, 2015


By:

/s/ Wayne-Kent A. Bradshaw Wayne-Kent A. Bradshaw
Chief Executive Officer
Broadway Financial Corporation


---



QuickLinks
# C_2021297EN.01003401.xml

| 26.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2021 — Yanukovych v Council

(Case T-303/19) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list - Council’s obligation to verify that the decision of an authority of a third State was taken in accordance with the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection)

(2021/C 297/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych (Rostov-on-Don, Russia) (represented by: M. Anderson, R. Kiddell, Solicitors, E. Dean and J. Marjason-Stamp, Barristers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: P. Mahnič, A. Vitro and T. Haas, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/354 of 4 March 2019 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2019 L 64, p. 7), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/352 of 4 March 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2019 L 64, p. 1), in so far as those acts maintain the applicant’s name on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/354 of 4 March 2019 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/352 of 4 March 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, in so far as the name of Mr Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych was maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/354 of 4 March 2019 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/352 of 4 March 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, in so far as the name of Mr Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych was maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures;

| 2. | Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 238, 15.7.2019.

---
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Richard A. Panek, Respondent. City of Syracuse, Appellant. Lillian Roberts, as Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

Main, J. P.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 21, 1984, which ruled that claimant was entitled to receive benefits.

Claimant was employed by the City of Syracuse and was serving as an auto mechanic crew leader on a probationary basis.* When a number of expensive new tires were stolen during his shift as crew leader, claimant was suspended and later discharged. In essence, the employer’s questionnaire and notices of suspension and discharge accused claimant of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle and a failure to perform duties on security control contrary to the employer’s rules. An amended termination notice also charged claimant with having falsified his application to take the civil service exam for the position he held by indicating that he was a resident of the City of Syracuse when, in fact, he resided outside the City. As a result of this misrepresentation, claimant gained a preference which made his appointment possible.

The administrative law judge (ALJ) concluded that claimant was not guilty of misconduct since the charges against him were for infractions of company rules “very commonly bent or broken”. However, the ALJ made no finding, indeed no mention, of the charge of fraudulent misrepresentation as to claimant’s residence on the application for the civil service examination, in spite of the fact that it was enthusiastically contested during the hearing and clearly was made an issue requiring resolution. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board adopted the ALJ’s decision in toto. Resolution of the misrepresentation issue is vital to the question of claimant’s entitlement to benefits and must be considered and passed upon by the Board. Our review is limited and we are not permitted to surmise, speculate or substitute our judgment for that of the Board. Moreover, failure of the agency to set forth an adequate statement of the factual basis forecloses the possibility of fair judicial review (see, *Matter of Montauk Improvement v Proccacino,*41 NY2d 913). Since the Board failed *467to address this relevant issue, its decision must be reversed and the matter remitted for further development of the record.

Decision reversed, without costs, and matter remitted to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. Main, J. P., Casey, Weiss, Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.

*

 As a probationary employee, claimant was not entitled to the protection of the grievance procedures provided for in the contract between the City of Syracuse and his union.