alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Paula Del Carmen BARRERA-VASQUEZ, aka Maura Estela Najera Cano, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-71552.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 16, 2007.*

Filed April 20, 2007.

Paula Del Carmen Barrera-Vasquez, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.

CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, William C. Minick, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, 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 **

Paula Del Carmen Barrera-Vasquez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision which affirmed the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Where, as here, the BIA “adopts the IJ’s *754decision while adding its own reasons, we review both decisions.” *Kataria v. INS,*232 F.3d 1107, 1112 (9th Cir.2000). We review for substantial evidence and may reverse only if the evidence compels such a result. *See INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We deny the petition for review.

The evidence does not compel the conclusion that Barrera-Vasquez was persecuted on account of a protected ground or that any future persecution would be on account of a protected ground. *See Sangha v. INS,*103 F.3d 1482, 1490-91 (9th Cir.1997). Moreover, Barrera-Vasquez remained in El Salvador for four years without further incident, and her parents continue to reside there without incident. *See Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir.2000). Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s and the BIA’s determination that Barrera-Vasquez failed to establish either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. *See Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. at 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812.

Because Barrera-Vasquez did not establish eligibility for asylum, it follows that she did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. *See Malhi v. INS,*336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir.2003).

Substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT relief because Barrera-Vasquez did not establish that it is more likely than not that she will be tortured if returned to El Salvador. *See id.*

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

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

Docket No. 36874

STATE OF IDAHO

,

Plaintiff-Respondent

,

v.

CHARLES M. PRICE

,

Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2010 Unpublished Opini on No. 461

Filed: May 13, 2010

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State o f Idaho, Canyon County. Hon. Renae J. Hoff , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of seven years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years , for domestic battery with traumatic injury

, affirmed

.

Greg S. Silvey, Kuna, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jessica M. Lorello , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respo ndent.

________________________________________________

Before GUTIERREZ, Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Charles M. Price pled guilty to domestic battery with traumatic injury . Idaho Code § §

18

- 903, 18

- 918(2) . The district court sentenced Price to a unified term of seven years, with a

minimum period of confinement of three years , to run concurrently with a sentence imposed by

the Federal court

. Pric e appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by imposing

an excessive sentence

. Sentencing is a matter for the trial court's discretion. Both our standard of review and the

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 1 14, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

-
15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.2

1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Pr ice ’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION***

I, A. Stone Douglass, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this annual report Form 10-K of Steakhouse Partners, Inc.; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 this quarterly report; and 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual 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 this quarterly report. 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have: 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the “Evaluation Date”); and 

c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant’s auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls; and 

6. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have indicated in this annual 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 our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses. 

| Dated: April 12, 2005 | BY: /S/ A. Stone DouglassA. Stone Douglass*President, Chief Executive Officer, andChairman of the Board(Serving as principal executiveofficer)* |
|-----------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
COLORADO RIVER NEAR DOTSERO, COLatitude: 39.645Longitude: -107.078Elevation: 6130

COLORADO RIVER NEAR DOTSERO, CO

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Middle Fork Camp Site Page...



Middle Fork Camp

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Arapaho Ridge Site Page...



Arapaho Ridge

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Never Summer Site Page...



Never Summer

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Mccoy Park Site Page...



Mccoy Park

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Beaver Ck Village Site Page...



Beaver Ck Village

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Bear River Site Page...



Bear River

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Elliot Ridge Site Page...



Elliot Ridge

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Fool Creek Site Page...



Fool Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to High Lonesome Site Page...



High Lonesome

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Sawtooth Site Page...



Sawtooth

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Arrow Site Page...



Arrow

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Bear Lake Site Page...



Bear Lake

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Berthoud Summit Site Page...



Berthoud Summit

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Bison Lake Site Page...



Bison Lake

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Columbine Site Page...



Columbine

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Copper Mountain Site Page...



Copper Mountain

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Fremont Pass Site Page...



Fremont Pass

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Grizzly Peak Site Page...



Grizzly Peak

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Hoosier Pass Site Page...



Hoosier Pass

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Ivanhoe Site Page...



Ivanhoe

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Lake Irene Site Page...



Lake Irene

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Loveland Basin Site Page...



Loveland Basin

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Lynx Pass Site Page...



Lynx Pass

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Phantom Valley Site Page...



Phantom Valley

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Stillwater Creek Site Page...



Stillwater Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Summit Ranch Site Page...



Summit Ranch

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Vail Mountain Site Page...



Vail Mountain

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Willow Creek Pass Site Page...



Willow Creek Pass

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Buffalo Park Site Page...



Buffalo Park

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Jackwhacker Gulch Site Page...



Jackwhacker Gulch

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Michigan Creek Site Page...



Michigan Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Jones Pass Site Page...



Jones Pass
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-1772

MEHERET GETAHUN, Petitioner,
versus
U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE; JOHN ASHCROFT, Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A74-290-637) Submitted: January 23, 2003 Decided: February 14, 2003 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lynda V. Rice, CAROLYN C. EAGLIN & ASSOCIATES, Alexandria, Virginia; Arthur D. Wright, III, THE WRIGHT LAW NETWORK, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Emily Anne Radford, Assistant Director, Michele Y. F. Sarko, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Meheret Getahun, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her motion to reopen deportation proceedings based on a claim for protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Getahun contends that the Board improperly applied the asylum standard in assessing this claim and failed to give proper weight to relevant country conditions in finding that she failed to establish a prima facie case that it is more likely than not she would suffer torture if she returned to Ethiopia. We have reviewed the administrative record and the Board’s decision. We conclude that the Board applied the correct standard in evaluating Getahun’s claim, and did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen. See Stewart v. INS , 181 F.3d 587, 595 (4th Cir. 1999); 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2) (2002). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
The State of TexasAppellee



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

July 13, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00015

- CR

Robert Alan QUEEMAN

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 63rd Judicial District Court, Kinne y County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2063

- CR

The Honorable Enrique Fernandez, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file the brief is GRANTED.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 13th day of July, 2015

.

___________________________________ Kei th E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information derived from Kiddie Academy
International, Inc.'s unaudited financial statements for the twenty-eight weeks
ended April 13, 1997, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements and the notes thereto.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   7-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-13-1997
<CASH>                                             396
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      133
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        102
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,662
<PP&E>                                           1,099
<DEPRECIATION>                                     378
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,768
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,341
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            20
<OTHER-SE>                                       (198)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,768
<SALES>                                          4,285
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,285
<CGS>                                            5,269
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,269
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   151
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   8
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (825)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (825)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (825)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.41)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.41)
        

</TABLE>
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Christus Health Ark-La-Tex d/b/a Christus 

St. Michael Health System, Appellant

No. 06-13-00052-CV v.

William C. Curtis and Tina Curtis, 

Appellees

Appeal from the 5th District Court of 

Bowie County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 

12C1341-005). Opinion delivered by Chief 

Justice Morriss, Justice Carter and Justice 

Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We further order that the appellant, Christus Health Ark-La-Tex d/b/a Christus St. 

Michael Health System, pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED AUGUST 30, 2013

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
#### Frances Ragusa, Appellant, v Philip Ragusa, Respondent.

Submitted November 13, 2006;

decided January 9, 2007

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
QUARTERLY  REPORT ON FORM 10-QSB FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         3,469
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         344
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               2,943
<TRADING-ASSETS>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    30,896
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         30,896
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           30,896
<LOANS>                                        96,042
<ALLOWANCE>                                    848
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 143,450
<DEPOSITS>                                     117,186
<SHORT-TERM>                                   856
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            1,684
<LONG-TERM>                                    897
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       13
<OTHER-SE>                                     20,704
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 143,450
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                3,859
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              917
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               74
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               4,849
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             2,326
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             2,503
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          2,346
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  40
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             4
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                2,076
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                553
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     553
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   407
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .33
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                 7.7
<LOANS-NON>                                    225
<LOANS-PAST>                                   300
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                1,026
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               856
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  48
<RECOVERIES>                                   0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              848
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           848
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                            0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        393
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2



Informational Addendum to Report on Form 10-Q

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



Not Filed Pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934



The undersigned Chief Financial Officer of OYO Geospace Corporation does hereby certify as follows:



Solely for the purpose of meeting the requirements of Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and solely to the extent this certification may be applicable to this Report on Form 10-Q, the undersigned hereby certify that this Report on Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in this Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of OYO Geospace Corporation.



/s/ Thomas T. McEntireName:

Thomas T. McEntireTitle:

Chief Financial OfficerMay 3, 2005
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23
- 1166

ETHELBERT T.F. JOHNSON , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. COMMONWEALTH OF VA , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk

. Arenda L. Wright Allen , District Judge. ( 2:22

- cv - 00219

- AWA

- DEM )

Submitted : August 29 , 2023 Decided: August 31, 2023

Before KING, AGEE, and BENJAMIN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Ethelbert T.F. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1166 Doc: 12 Filed: 08/31/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Ethelbert T.F. Johnson appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action in which he sought to challenge a prior state court decision. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Johnson’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, he has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey , 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to is sues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. Johnson v. Virginia , No. 2:22

- cv - 00219

- AWA

- DEM (E.D. Va. Jan. 30, 2023). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately present ed in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 23-1166 Doc: 12 Filed: 08/31/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
# L_2009215DE.01000701.xml

| 20.8.2009 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 215/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.8.2009

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 215/7

---

Berichtigung der Richtlinie 2009/5/EG der Kommission vom 30. Januar 2009 zur Änderung von Anhang III der Richtlinie 2006/22/EG des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates über Mindestbedingungen für die Durchführung der Verordnungen (EWG) Nr. 3820/85 und (EWG) Nr. 3821/85 des Rates über Sozialvorschriften für Tätigkeiten im Kraftverkehr

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 29 vom 31. Januar 2009
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 29 vom 31. Januar 2009

Seite 48, Anhang III, Punkt 2, Nr. G4:

anstatt:

„Muster-Schaublatt sind nicht zugelassen“

muss es heißen:

„Schaublatt-Muster nicht amtlich genehmigt“;

Seite 49, Anhang III, Punkt 2, Nr. G18:

anstatt:

„Schaublatt oder Fahrerkarte wurde über den Zeitraum, für den es/sie bestimmt ist, hinaus verwendet, aber kein Datenverlust“

muss es heißen:

„Schaublatt oder Fahrerkarte wurde über den Zeitraum, für den es/sie bestimmt ist, hinaus verwendet, mit Datenverlust“;

Seite 50, Anhang III, Punkt 2, Nr. I4:

anstatt:

„Die Fahrerkarte (falls der Fahrer Inhaber einer solchen Karte ist) kann nicht vorgelegt werden“

muss es heißen:

„Die Aufzeichnungen der Fahrerkarte (falls der Fahrer Inhaber einer solchen Karte ist) können nicht vorgelegt werden“.

---