alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Vivek SHARMA; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-75091.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 16, 2007 *.

Filed April 19, 2007.

Larry F. Chin, Julian & Chin LLP, Seattle, WA, for Petitioners.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, WWS-District Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Office of the District Counsel, James D. Oesterle, USSEOffice of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Respondent.

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

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Vivek Sharma, his wife Reena, and their daughter Shriya, all natives and citizens of India, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) affirmance of an immigration judge’s denial of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.

The BIA denied the Sharmas’ request for asylum in the exercise of its discretion. We conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in doing so. *See Kalubi v. Ashcroft*364 F.3d 1134, 1140 *&*n. 6 (9th Cir.2004).

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of the Sharmas’ claim for withholding of removal. *See id.*at 1139.

Because the Sharmas did not raise their CAT claim before the BIA, it is unexhausted and we lack jurisdiction to review it. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 677 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
CERTIFICATIONS
 
 I, Raymond R. Brandstrom, Chief Financial Officer, certify that:
 
 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Emeritus Corporation;
 
 2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;
 
 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 report;
 
 4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 
 (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being prepared;
 
 (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
 
 (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and
 
 5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 
 (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
 
 (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.
 
 
 /s/    Raymond R. Brandstrom
 Raymond R. Brandstrom
 Chief Financial Officer
 August 12, 2004
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6668

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

LARRY SINCLAIR WILLIAMS-EL,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 98-6775

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

LARRY SINCLAIR WILLIAMS-EL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CR-92-83)

Submitted: July 30, 1998 Decided: August 26, 1998
2

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry Sinclair Williams-El, Appellant Pro Se. John Patrick Rowley,

III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

In No. 98-6668, Larry Sinclair Williams-El appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a reduction of sentence,

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (1994). In No. 98-6775, Williams-El appeals

from the denial of his motion challenging the $50 assessment

imposed as part of his sentence and also challenging the consecutive supervised release terms. Our review of the records and the

district court’s opinions discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United

States v. Williams-El, No. CR-92-83 (E.D. Va. Apr. 14 & May 4,

1998). We deny the motion to stay and 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.

AFFIRMED
Listen

# Videos

Please note that the videos below use auto generated closed captioning technology.

Review the YouTube Terms of Service and the Google Privacy Policy.

----

              - May 18, 2023Commission Business Meeting Thursday, May 18, 2023, 10 a.m. EST. 
              - April 21, 2023Commission Business Meeting, Friday, April 21, 2023, 12:00 pm EST 
              - March 24, 2023The Federal Response to Anti-Asian Racism in the United States (Panel 3) 
              - March 24, 2023The Federal Response to Anti-Asian Racism in the United States 
              - March 24, 2023The Federal Response to Anti-Asian Racism in the United States (Panel 1) 
              - March 24, 2023The Federal Response to Anti-Asian Racism in the United States (Panel 2) 
              - March 14, 2023Virtual Roundtable Discussion: Creating A Model for Black Economic Citizenship 3/14/23 1PM 
              - November 18, 2022Commission Business Meeting  11/18/2022 @ 10:00AM 

-    First  
-    Previous  
-  1 
-  2 
-  3 
-  4 
-  5 
-   ...  
-   Next  
-   Last
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
       
<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                            SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                   21,288,000
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                             9,999,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                252,000
<INVENTORY>                               1,021,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         34,305,000
<PP&E>                                    9,368,000
<DEPRECIATION>                            4,353,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           40,575,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     9,398,000
<BONDS>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                    149,000
<OTHER-SE>                               64,411,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             31,177,000
<SALES>                                  31,249,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         31,249,000
<CGS>                                    14,378,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            14,378,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         37,381,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        (19,380,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    (19,380,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                           (19,380,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                (1.39)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (1.39)

        


</TABLE>
Skip to main content

Privacy Policy•Site map

#  Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims

Current Rules (July 31, 2023)

Appendix of Forms, RCFC

Rules Archives

Howard T. Markey National Courts Building • 717 Madison Place, NW, Washington, DC 20439 • 202-357-6400
#### June M. Marrow, Appellant, v William L. Marrow, Respondent.

Memorandum: The trial court erred in dismissing plaintiffs complaint for a divorce at the conclusion of the plaintiffs case *(see, Crowley v Brown,*91 AD2d 601; *Bartkowiak v St. Adalbert’s R. C. Church Socy.,*40 AD2d 306). Plaintiff placed into evidence a petition and order of the Family Court in a filiation proceeding brought against the defendant, which determined that defendant was the father of a child born to another woman on January 13, 1978. This, together with the admission of the defendant at an examination before trial that he was paying support for said child, is sufficient to support a prima facie case of adultery to defeat defendant’s motion to dismiss *(Marmorale v Marmorale,*103 AD2d 736; *Salicco v Salicco,*125 Misc 2d 137; *Trumpet v Trumpet,*215 NYS2d 921 [1961]; *Barbara v Barbara,*57 NYS2d 156 [Kings County 1945]).

Trial court, apparently in the belief that defendant, on plaintiff’s direct case, established the defense of recrimination under Domestic Relations Law § 171 (4), did not pass upon the sufficiency of plaintiff’s proof in this regard. Such finding had to have been based primarily upon defendant’s testimony. Such testimony violates CPLR 4502 (a) and should have been disregarded *(Hendery v Hendery,*101 AD2d 624). The fact that plaintiff’s counsel belatedly objected to the testimony does not alter the result *(Taylor v Taylor,*123 App Div 220; *Admire v Admire,*180 Misc 68). Plaintiff denied many of the allegations testified to by defendant, thereby raising issues of fact that can only be determined at the close of all the proof *(Nicholas v Reason,*84 AD2d 915).

Plaintiff likewise established a prima facie case for a divorce upon the grounds of cruel and inhuman treatment. Giving plaintiff’s proof every favorable inference, it establishes a course of adulterous conduct by defendant which extended into the five years immediately preceding the commencement of this action. Such adulterous conduct has been held to be sufficient proof of cruel and inhuman treatment to warrant the granting of a divorce *(Fritz v Fritz,*88 AD2d 778; *Hendery v Hendery, supra).*Therefore, plaintiff’s cause of action for cruel and inhuman treatment should not have been dismissed at the close of plaintiff’s case. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Francis, J. — divorce.) Present— Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Boomer, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
#### LITTLE, Respondent, v. KINGSTON CITY RY. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

October 2, 1896.)

Action by Thomas Little against the Kingston City Railway Company.

No opinion. Application for certificate to the court of appeals under section 191 of the Code of Civil Procedure denied.
# C_2021305EN.01003201.xml

| 30.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 305/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/32

---

Notice for the attention of the data subjects to whom the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 and Council Regulation (EU) 2016/44 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya apply

(2021/C 305/05)

The attention of data subjects is drawn to the following information in accordance with Article 16 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1).

The legal basis for this processing operation is Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 (2), as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/1251 (3),and Council Regulation (EU) 2016/44 (4), as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1241 (5).

The controller of this processing operation is the Council of the European Union represented by the Director-General of RELEX (External Relations) of the General Secretariat of the Council and the department entrusted with the processing operation is RELEX.1.C that can be contacted at:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| RELEX.1.C. |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

RELEX.1.C.

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

The purpose of the processing operation is the establishment and updating of the list of persons subject to restrictive measures in accordance with Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333, as amended by Decision (CFSP) 2021/1251, and Regulation (EU) 2016/44, as implemented by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1241.

The data subjects are the natural persons who fulfil the listing criteria as laid down in Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 and Regulation (EU) 2016/44.

The personal data collected includes data necessary for the correct identification of the person concerned, the statement of reasons and any other data related thereto.

The personal data collected may be shared as necessary with the European External Action Service and the Commission.

Without prejudice to restrictions pursuant to Article 25 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725, the exercise of the rights of the data subjects such as the right of access, as well as the rights to rectification or to object will be answered in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2018/1725.

Personal data will be retained for 5 years from the moment the data subject has been removed from the list of persons subject to the restrictive measures or the validity of the measure has expired, or for the duration of court proceedings in the event they had been started.

Without prejudice to any judicial, administrative or non-judicial remedy, data subjects may lodge a complaint with the European Data Protection Supervisor in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 (edps@edps.europa.eu).

---

(1)  OJ L 295, 21.11.2018, p. 39.

(2)  OJ L 206, 1.8.2015, p. 34.

(3)  OJ L 272, 30.7.2021, p. 71.

(4)  OJ L 12, 19.1.2016, p. 1.

(5)  OJ L 272, 30.7.2021, p. 1.

---
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

_________________________________

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Complainant

vs.

WARREN PAUL RILEY

Respondent

_________________________________

Docket Number 2023-0198

Enforcement Activity No.7639666

CONSENT ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

On June 27, 2023, the parties in this case submitted a Motion for Approval of a 

Settlement Agreement and Entry of Consent Order to be approved as a settlement of the case 

under 33 C.F.R. § 20.502.

I have carefully reviewed the terms of the Settlement Agreement and find that it is fair 

and reasonable and in substantial compliance with the requirements of 33 C.F.R. § 20.502.

ORDER

Upon consideration of record, it is hereby ORDERED that the Settlement Agreement is 

APPROVED in full and incorporated herein by reference. This Consent Order shall constitute 

full, final, and complete adjudication of this proceeding.

Done and Dated August 2, 2023 at

New Orleans, LA

_________________________________

HON. BRIAN J. CURLEY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
Listen

# Correspondence

Commission Sends Letter to California Secretary of State Transmitting Advisory Committee Report on Voting Rights
April 24, 2019

Commission Sends Letters to Government Entities Transmitting Arizona Advisory Committee Memorandum on Voting Rights
March 22, 2019

Letter to House Judiciary Committee Transmitting Commission’s Minority Voting Rights Access Report
February 1, 2019

-    First  
-    Previous  
-  1 
-  2 

-  All News 
-  Commission News 
-  Advisory Committees News 
-  Correspondence 
-  Videos 
-  Archives
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Temel Greene, Appellant.

Submitted April 2, 2007;

decided April 26, 2007

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Richard M. Greenberg, Esq., Office of the Appellate Defender, 11 Park Place, Suite 1601, New York, NY 10007 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
# C_2021152EN.01001101.xml

| 29.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 152/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 152/11

---

Communication from the Minister for Economic Affairs and Climate Policy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands pursuant to Article 3(2) of Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons

(2021/C 152/03)

The Minister for Economic Affairs and Climate Policy hereby gives notice that an application has been received for authorisation to prospect for hydrocarbons in block segments L07e and L08f as indicated on the map appended as Annex 3 to the Mining Regulation (Mijnbouwregeling).

Block segment L07e is delimited by the great circles between vertex pairs A-B, B-D and A-D.

Block segment L07e covers an area of 30,8 km2.

Block segment L08f is delimited by the great circles between vertex pairs B-C, C-D and B-D.

Block segment L08f covers an area of 10,2 km2.

The vertices are defined as follows:

| Vertex | o | ’ | ‘’ E | o | ’ | ‘’ N |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| A | 4 | 13 | 55,046 | 53 | 29 | 57,287 |
| B | 4 | 19 | 55,046 | 53 | 34 | 57,301 |
| C | 4 | 21 | 55,054 | 53 | 31 | 57,296 |
| D | 4 | 19 | 55,055 | 53 | 29 | 57,291 |

Vertex

o

’

‘’ E

o

’

‘’ N

A

4

13

55,046

53

29

57,287

B

4

19

55,046

53

34

57,301

C

4

21

55,054

53

31

57,296

D

4

19

55,055

53

29

57,291

The above vertices are defined by their geographical coordinates, calculated according to the ETRS89 system.

With reference to the Directive referred to in the preamble and Article 15 of the Mining Act (Mijnbouwwet), the Minister for Economic Affairs and Climate Policy hereby invites interested parties to submit a competing application for authorisation to prospect for hydrocarbons in block segments L07e and L08f of the Dutch continental shelf.

The Minister for Economic Affairs and Climate Policy is the competent authority for the granting of authorisations. The criteria, conditions and requirements referred to in Articles 5(1) and (2) and 6(2) of the above-mentioned Directive are set out in the Mining Act.

Applications may be submitted during the 13 weeks following the publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union and should be sent to:

| The Minister for Economic Affairs and Climate Policy |
| --- |
| attn.: Mr J.L. Rosch, Energy and Environment Directorate |
| Bezuidenhoutseweg 73 |
| Postbus 20401 |
| 2500 EK Den Haag |
| NEDERLAND |

The Minister for Economic Affairs and Climate Policy

attn.: Mr J.L. Rosch, Energy and Environment Directorate

Bezuidenhoutseweg 73

Postbus 20401

2500 EK Den Haag

NEDERLAND

Email: mijnbouwvergunningen@minezk.nl

Applications received after the expiry of this period will not be considered.

A decision on the applications will in principle be taken not later than 12 months after this period has expired.

Further information can be obtained by calling Ms E. Aygün on the following telephone number:

+31 611223780.

---
Listen

# Commission sends Letter to House Committees about a Reallocation of Resources

August 6, 2020

Letter to House Committees

-  All News 
-  Commission News 
-  Advisory Committees News 
-  Correspondence 
-  Videos 
-  Archives
EXHIBIT 6






Consent of Independent Auditor
 
  We hereby consent to the inclusion in this Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2012 of Canadian Natural Resources Limited of our report dated March 6, 2013, relating to the consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appear in this Annual Report.
 
 We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form F-9 (File No. 333-177401) of Canadian Natural Resources Limited of our report dated March 6, 2013 referred to above.
  SIGNED “PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP”
 Chartered Accountants
 Calgary, Alberta
 March 27, 2013
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Financial Data Statement for Hyperion Telecommunications, Inc
for the Year ended March 31, 1997
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001017648
<NAME> HYPERION TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          59,814
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      768<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                60,582
<PP&E>                                          53,921<F2>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0<F2>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 174,601
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,180
<BONDS>                                        213,028
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           101
<OTHER-SE>                                    (50,355)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   174,601
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,088
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,157
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (7,158)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              28,377
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (30,288)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       259
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (30,547)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (30,547)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.88)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.88)
<FN>
<F1>Receivables net of Allowance
<F2>PP&E net of Depreciation
</FN>
        

</TABLE>