alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Rebeca ALVARADO-VALENCIA, aka Rebeca Alvarado Vda De Valencia, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-76119.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 16, 2007 *.

Filed April 20, 2007.

John E. Ricci, Esq., Law Office of Ricci & Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Justin M. Nicholson, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Atlanta, GA, for Respondent.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Rebeca Alvarado-Valencia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ *769(“BIA”) decision that affirmed the Immigration Judge’s (“U”) denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, *Aruta v. INS,*80 F.3d 1389, 1393 (9th Cir.1996), and we deny in part and dismiss in part.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that the threat Alvarado-Valencia received did not constitute past persecution on account of a protected ground. *See Lim v. INS,*224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir.2000); *see also Sangha v. INS,*103 F.3d 1482, 1490-91 (9th Cir.1997) (petitioner presented no evidence to show that he was persecuted on account of a political opinion). In addition, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that Alvarado-Valencia’s fear of future persecution is not objectively reasonable. *See Nagoulko v. INS,*333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir.2003). Accordingly, her asylum claim is denied.

Because Alvarado-Valencia failed to satisfy the lower standard of proof for asylum, it necessarily follows that she failed to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. *See Zehatye v. Gonzales,*453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006).

Because Alvarado-Valencia failed to exhaust her CAT claim before the BIA, this court lacks jurisdiction to review it. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1793 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1793

  To provide a categorical exclusion under the National Environmental 
    Policy Act of 1969 to allow the Director of the Bureau of Land 
Management and the Chief of the Forest Service to remove Pinyon-Juniper 
 trees to conserve and restore the habitat of the greater sage-grouse 
                           and the mule deer.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 14, 2015

 Mr. Stewart introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
  Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on 
Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, 
 in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
                jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide a categorical exclusion under the National Environmental 
    Policy Act of 1969 to allow the Director of the Bureau of Land 
Management and the Chief of the Forest Service to remove Pinyon-Juniper 
 trees to conserve and restore the habitat of the greater sage-grouse 
                           and the mule deer.

    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 ``Sage-Grouse and Mule Deer Habitat 
Conservation and Restoration Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION FOR PINYON-JUNIPER TREE REMOVAL.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a vegetation management 
project by the Director of the Bureau of Land Management or the Chief 
of the Forest Service involving removal or treatment of any Pinyon or 
Juniper tree for the purpose of conserving or restoring the habitat of 
the greater sage-grouse or mule deer shall be eligible to be a 
categorical exclusion (as defined in section 1508.4 of title 40, Code 
of Federal Regulations (or a successor regulation)) for purposes of the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
                                 <all>
```
# **EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

I, Timothy S. Durham, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer ofObsidian Enterprises, Inc., certify that (i) the Annual Report on Form 10-Kfor the year ended October 31, 2005, (the “Report”) fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of Obsidian Enterprises, Inc. as of the dates and for the periodsset forth therein.

 

 
|   | /s/ Timothy S. Durham                 |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Timothy S. Durham                     |
|   | Chairman  and Chief Executive Officer |
|   | February  14, 2006                    |

 

I, Rick D. Snow, the Executive Vice President and Chief FinancialOfficer of Obsidian Enterprises, Inc., certify that (i) the AnnualReport on Form 10-K for the year ended October 31, 2005, (the “Report”)fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of Obsidian Enterprises, Inc. as of the datesand for the periods set forth therein.

 

 
|   | /s/ Rick D. Snow                                  |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Rick D. Snow                                      |
|   | Executive  Vice President/Chief Financial Officer |
|   | February  14, 2006                                |

 

----
1 – ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL ACCESS 

TO JUSTICE ACT

John E. Haapala, Jr.

OSB 061739

401 E. 10th Ave., Ste. 240

Eugene, OR 97401

Ph: 541-345-8474

Fax: 541-345-3237

jeh@haapalaw.com

Of attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

STACEY ANN CLOUSE,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

CAROLYN COLVIN,

Commissioner, Social Security 

Administration,

 Defendant.

Case No. 6:16-CV-00084-HZ

ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEY FEES 

PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL ACCESS TO 

JUSTICE ACT

Based upon the stipulation of the parties, it is hereby ORDERED that, pursuant 

to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2412, an attorney fee plus costs in the 

amount of $5,900 shall be awarded to Plaintiff.

The parties agree that this award will be paid to Plaintiff’s attorney, dependent 

upon verification that Plaintiff has no debt which qualifies for offset against the award, 

pursuant to the Treasury Offset Program as discussed in Astrue v. Ratliff ,560 U.S. 586 

(2010). If Plaintiff has no such debt, then a check shall be made to Plaintiff’s attorney, 

and mailed directly to Plaintiff’s attorney at: 401 E. 10th Ave., Ste. 240, Eugene, OR 

Case 6:16-cv-00084-HZ Document 23-2 Filed 05/01/17 Page 1 of 2
2 – ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL ACCESS 

TO JUSTICE ACT

97401. If Plaintiff has a debt, then a check for any remaining funds after offset of the 

debt shall be made to Plaintiff and mailed to Plaintiff’s attorney’s office.

There are no other costs or expenses to be paid herein.

Dated this _____ of May, 2017.

United States District Judge/Magistrate

Submitted by:

John E Haapala, OSB 061739

401 E. 10th Ave., Ste. 240

Eugene, OR 97401

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 6:16-cv-00084-HZ Document 23-2 Filed 05/01/17 Page 2 of 2
MEMO IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR HEARING: RE DISCOVER MANAGEMENT... Kohlmetz Steen & Hanrahan PC

741 SW Lincoln Street

Portland, OR 97201

(503) 224-1104

Andrew M. Kohlmetz, OSB #955418

Kohlmetz Steen & Hanrahan PC

741 SW Lincoln Street

Portland, OR 97201

Tel: (503) 224-1104

Fax: (503) 224-9417

Email: andy@kshlawyers.com

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

JASON PATRICK,

Defendant

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 3:16-CR-00051-BR-09

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR HEARING 

RE: DISCOVERY MANAGEMENT,

PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE AND FOR 

PROVISION OF DEFENSE ACCESS TO 

CRIME SCENES

The defendant has filed with the Court a Discovery Request and a Request to the United 

States requesting the preservation of any and all crime scene evidence and for allowing the 

defense access to any such crime scenes.

Due to the number of defendants, the size and location of the crime scenes, and the 

ongoing and volatile nature of the events which have occurred and are occurring at the Malheur 

National Wildlife Refuge (“MNWR”), defendant seeks the assistance of the Court in fashioning

an appropriate Order or Orders regarding the preservation and recordation of crime scene 

evidence and for allowing defense access thereto.

The Court has inherent authority under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 2, and 16 to 

manage discovery practices and procedures in this case to ensure the proper and orderly 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 142 Filed 02/11/16 Page 1 of 2
MEMO IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR HEARING: RE DISCOVER MANAGEMENT... Kohlmetz Steen & Hanrahan PC

741 SW Lincoln Street

Portland, OR 97201

(503) 224-1104

administration of justice. United States v. Cervantes, N.D. Cal. May 24, 2013 WL 22999622, 

United States v. W.R. Grace, 526 F.3d, 499, 509-12 (further citation omitted.)

Respectfully submitted this 11th day of February, 2016.

________________________________ 

Andrew M. Kohlmetz, OSB 955418

Attorney for Defendant Patrick

 Andrew M. Kohlmetz

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 142 Filed 02/11/16 Page 2 of 2
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16A1250. VINCENT TRAYLOR v. THE STATE.

Vincent Traylor pled guilty to two counts of armed robbery in 2008. No direct

appeal was taken from these convictions. On December 3, 2015, Traylor filed a pro

se motion for discovery at the government’s expense. In his motion, Traylor sought

copies of all discovery, transcripts, and material documents. The trial court denied

the motion, and Traylor filed this direct appeal. We, however, lack jurisdiction.

“[I]f no petition for habeas corpus is pending at the time an indigent prisoner

makes any application for a transcript . . . for purposes of collateral attack upon his

conviction or sentence, that application will be treated as a separate civil action

subject to the procedures and requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of

1996. Specifically, appeals from the denial of any such application for free

transcripts for post-conviction collateral attack must comply with the discretionary

appeal procedures of OCGA § 5-6-35.” Coles v. State, 223 Ga. App. 491, 492 (1)

(477 SE2d 897) (1996); see OCGA § 42-12-8. There is nothing in the record that

indicates Traylor has filed a petition for habeas corpus, or any other action attacking

his conviction or sentence. Thus, Traylor was required to file an application for

discretionary appeal. Because Traylor failed to follow the discretionary appeal

procedure as required here, his appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

April 08, 2016
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

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.

04/08/2016
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

CHERYLL. ALO, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

CONIMISSIONER, 

Social Security Administration, 

Defendant. 

CaseNo.1:16-cv-00180-BR 

ORDERFORPAYMENTOFATTORNEY 

FEES PURSUANT TO EAJA 

Based upon the Stipulation of the parties, it is hereby ORDERED that attorney fees in the 

amount of $10,713.15 are hereby awarded to Plaintiff, pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act 

(EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. Payment of this award shall be via check made payable to Plaintiff 

and mailed to Plaintiff's attorneys at HARDER, WELLS, BARON & MANNING, P.C., 474 

Willamette Street, Eugene, Oregon 97401. Pursuant to Astrue v. Ratliff, the award shall be made 

payable to Katherine Eitenmiller, HARDER, WELLS, BARON & MANNING, P.C., if the 

Commissioner confirms that Plaintiff owes no debt to the Government through the federal treasury 

offset program. There are no costs or expenses to be paid herein. 

Dated this l1~ayof ~ 2019. 

AN~~;:~;?f 

United States District Judge 

~ 

Proposed Order submitted by: 

Katherine L. Eitenmiller 

HARDER, WELLS, BARON & MANNING, P.C. 

474 Willamette Street, Eugene, OR 97401 

(541) 686-1969 

keitenmiller@hwbm.net 

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff
# C_2009048EN.01000101.xml

| 27.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5471 — Goldman Sachs/Constellation Energy Commodities)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2009/C 48/01)

On 23 February 2009, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32009M5471. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32009M5471. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Chief Judge Moon, Judge Willis and Senior Judge Hodges Argued at Alexandria, Virginia

MICHAEL DWAYNE CARTER v. Record No. 1756-94-4 MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY JUDGE JERE M. H. WILLIS, JR. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA OCTOBER 3, 1995

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY Frank A. Hoss, Jr., Judge Polly B. Knight for appellant. Eugene Murphy, Assistant Attorney General (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

On appeal from his conviction of conspiracy to distribute cocaine, Michael Dwayne Carter contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. We agree and reverse the judgment of the trial court. On July 2, 1993, while conducting covert surveillance in the area of Bird Drive in Manassas, Officer Woolverton saw Mary Barber, whose identity he knew, talking to a man later identified as Gerald Davis. Davis asked Ms. Barber whether she could find him some drugs. He gave her $140. Ms. Barber approached Carter who was standing nearby. He gave her crack cocaine, which she gave to Davis, who then walked away. Ms. Barber then gave the $140 to Carter. This evidence fails to prove that Carter conspired with Ms.

* Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.- 2 - Barber to distribute cocaine to Davis. "A conspiracy is 'an agreement between two or more persons by some concerted action to commit an offense.'" Brown v. Commonwealth , 3 Va. App. 101, 107, 348 S.E.2d 408, 411 (1986). "Absent an actual agreement between two or more persons, a bilateral meeting of the minds, Virginia law precludes a finding that a conspiracy exists." Fortune v. Commonwealth , 12 Va. App. 643, 650, 406 S.E.2d 47, 50 (1991). "[T]he Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an agreement existed." Floyd v. Commonwealth , 219 Va. 575, 580, 249 S.E.2d 171, 174 (1978). "A conspiracy to distribute drugs can be shown by a series of drug transactions where one person sells drugs to a buyer who, in turn, resells them to a third party." Feigley v.

Commonwealth , 16 Va. App. 717, 722, 432 S.E.2d 520, 524 (1993). "As a general rule a single buyer-seller relationship, standing alone, does not constitute a conspiracy." Zuniga v.

Commonwealth , 7 Va. App. 523, 528, 375 S.E.2d 381, 385 (1988). "Likewise, evidence of a distribution offense absent an agreement will not suffice to support a conspiracy conviction." Id. Viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the evidence failed to prove that Carter and Ms. Barber had prearranged the distribution of drugs. No evidence proved a prior meeting, a meeting of the minds, or prior transactions completed in the same manner by Ms. Barber for Carter. The evidence disclosed only an isolated transaction wherein Ms.- 3 - Barber agreed to act on behalf of Davis to purchase drugs. The Commonwealth failed to prove a conspiracy between Carter and Ms.

Barber. The judgment of the trial court is reversed.

Reversed

.
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT





As adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010 of Integrated BioPharma, Inc. (the “Company”) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Dina L. Masi, the Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Integrated BioPharma, Inc.(the "Company"), certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to her knowledge:





(1)
the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and





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





This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





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.








Date:           September 28, 2010
By: /s/ Dina L. MasiDina L. MasiSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
# C_2009275EN.01001601.xml

| 14.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 275/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 275/16

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5621 — Univeg/Ciccolella/Subsidiaries of Univeg)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 275/06

On 30 October 2009, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5621. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5621. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
The Hopi Landscape
•C

Vth•AmopwHeth
Hopi Villages

• Collection of peoples with differing 

histories and knowledge. They only became Hopi once they got to the Hopi Mesas.

• 1 Village Tewa

•Hopi Mesa area occupied Archaic period and possib•Many Hopi Villages abanrelocated during Pueblo re•Oraibi continuously occuabout 1000 AD
Öngtupqa: the Grand Cany

a Hopi TCP

• Location where significant events have occurred:

Origin place (Sipapuni)Clan Migrations (Archaeological sites)Ceremony originsLocations for natural resource acquisition, including plants, animals, mwaterPassage to and residence in the afterlife

• Location where important dieties and people reside

11 different personages integral to Hopi history, ceremony, and continGrand Canyon 

• Continues to maintain and inform on Hopi history
Riparian Plant Resource

•141 Plants identified that are significant to Hopi•They can be classified within 4 major categories of Use:

Ceremonial/Religious (92)Medicinal (72)Foods (51)Utilitarian (48)

(80% have more than a single usage)

•Traditional Knowledge

Plant identification (taxonomy)Habitat (physical and ecological niches in ecosystem)Management Usage ( harvesting, preparation, storage)

•Extirpated species
#### Appalachian Insurance Company, Respondent, v General Electric Company, Appellant, and Riunione Adriatica DiSicurta, Also Known as Adriatic Insurance Company et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants. (And a Third-Party Action.)

Submitted April 2, 2007;

decided May 1, 2007

Motion for reargument and to amend the opinion and remittitur denied *[see*8 NY3d 162].

Judges Read and Jones taking no part.