alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Complainant

vs.

JESSICA MARIE VALENTIN

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket Number: 2023-0413

CONSENT ORDER

Issued: February 08, 2024

By Order of Administrative Law Judge Administrative Law Judge:

Honorable BRIAN J. CURLEY

Appearances:

For the Coast Guard

Alex Gagne

Sector Virginia

John Crow

Sector Virginia

For the Respondent

Jessica Marie Valentin
CONSENT ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

On January 23, 2024, the parties in this case submitted a Motion for Approval of a 

Settlement Agreement and Entry of Consent Order to the Administrative Law Judge for approval 

under 33 C.F.R. § 20.502.

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

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

ORDER

Upon consideration of the 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.

__________________________________

Brian Curley

Administrative Law Judge

Date: February 08, 2024
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-61243

Summary Calendar

Sindia Jhojana Ocampo Villalobos; 

Wendy Tatiana Ocampo Villalobos, 

Petitioners,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of

the Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A 206 414 791

BIA No. A 206 414 792

Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Sindia and Wendy Ocampo Villalobos petition for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing their appeal of

the denial of their application for asylum and withholding of removal. The 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 11, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-61243 Document: 00516315500 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/11/2022
No. 20-61243

2

immigration judge (“I.J.”) determined that they were not eligible for that 

relief because, in part, their articulated particular social group (“PSG”), 

“Honduran family targeted by the gangs,” was not cognizable. See Jaco v. 

Garland, 24 F.4th 395, 403 (5th Cir. 2021). The I.J. reasoned that the PSG 

was too vague, given that “Honduran family” was not limited in any way and 

could include almost any family in Honduras and that “targeted by the 

gang[s]” could refer to many things, including extortion, physical abuse, or 

recruitment. In addition, the I.J. found that there was insufficient evidence 

that the PSG was viewed by society as a socially distinct group. 

The BIA agreed and adopted those reasons. We may review the I.J.’s 

decision to the extent it had “some impact on the BIA’s decision.” Wang v. 

Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009).

The petitioners do not assert any error by the BIA or the I.J. in concluding that the articulated PSG was not cognizable. They do brief whether 

there was a nexus between the alleged persecution and their membership in 

the PSG, but the BIA has “carefully distinguished” the PSG and nexus 

requirements. Jaco, 24 F.4th at 403. 

The failure to brief the adverse PSG determination abandons any challenge to it. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003); Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). 

Because the determination precludes relief on asylum and withholding of 

removal, see Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 518 (5th Cir. 2012), we 

do not reach the contentions concerning credibility, past persecution, future 

persecution, and nexus. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976); see 

also Cantu-Delgadillo v. Holder, 584 F.3d 682, 690 (5th Cir. 2009). 

The petition for review is DENIED. 

Case: 20-61243 Document: 00516315500 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/11/2022
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Charles S. Wiesenhart Jr., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of FiberNet Telecom Group, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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;

3. Based on my knowledge, the condensed
consolidated interim financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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 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 we 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 quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the
registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this quarterly 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 registered public accounting firm 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.

Date: May 15, 2007



|                             
|-----------------------------
|/s/ Charles S. Wiesenhart Jr.
|Charles S. Wiesenhart Jr.    
|Vice President - Finance and 
|Chief Financial Officer      
|(Principal Financial Officer)
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                            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 Quarterly Report of Pyramid Breweries Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Eric G.
Peterson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

/s/ ERIC G. PETERSON

Eric G. Peterson
Chief Financial Officer
May 15, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Pyramid Breweries Inc. and will be retained by Pyramid Breweries
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
T,INITED STATES OF AMERICA

U.S. DEP;RTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

T]NITED STATES COAST GUARD

ComPlainant

VS.

TIMOTHY LEMATTEY

Respondent

Dockct Number 2021-0027

Enforcement Activity No- 7621139

CONSENT ORDER APPROVING SE EN,I ENT AGREEN{ENT

On September 27, 2023, the paties in this case submitted a Motion for Approval ofa

Settlement Agreement and Entry ofConsent Order to be approved as a settlement ofthe 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 of33 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 ofthis proceeding.

Done and Dated September 2E,2023 at

New Orleans, LA

HON. BRIAN J. CURLEY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARI)

ADMTNISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 22

- 50157 Summary Calendar
**United States of America,** Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus **Leticia Lerma**

**- Pichardo,**  Defendant

— Appellant

**.** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:21

- CR

- 867

- 1

Before **Smith, Dennis,**  and **Southwick,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *
Letitia Lerma

- Pichardo appeals her sentence for illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)( 2 ). Lerma

- Pichardo contends, for the first time on appeal, that it violates the Constitution to treat a prior conviction that incr eases the statutory maximum under § 1326(b) as a

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circum

stances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED November 1, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-50157 Document: 00516529206 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/01/2022No. 22

- 50157

2 sentencing factor rather than as an element of the offense. Lerma

- Pichardo concedes that this issue is foreclosed by Almendarez

- Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but s he seeks to preserve i t future review. In addition,
s he has filed an unopposed motion for summary disposition. As Lerma

- Pichardo concedes, the sole issue raised on appeal is fore

closed. See United States v. Pervis , 937 F.3d 546, 553

– 54 (5th Cir. 2019) ; United States v. Wallace , 759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014) . Because h er posi

tion “is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial ques tion as to the outcome of the case,” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5 th Cir. 1969), summary disposition is proper. Accord

ingly, the motion for summary disposition is **GRANTED** , and the judgment is **AFFIRMED**

. Case: 22-50157 Document: 00516529206 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/01/2022
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 06-3436

___________ Alberici Corporation, as Plan * Administrator for Alberici Companies * Retirement Plan; * * Plaintiff - Appellee, * * Gary Davis, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Eastern Intervenor Plaintiff - * District of Missouri. Appellee, * * [UNPUBLISHED] v. * * Helen E. Davis, * * Defendant - Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: June 11, 2007 Filed: June 20, 2007

___________ Before BYE, RILEY, and BENTON Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.1 The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. -2- Helen Davis appeals the district court's 1 award of attorney's fees in favor of Gary Davis. Because an extended discu ssion would add nothing to the well-reasoned order of the district court, we affirm under 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
Summary of Compensation for
Non-Employee Directors and Named Executive Officers of
First Acceptance Corporation (the Company)
 Non-Employee Director Compensation Summary
 Annual Retainer
 Board and Committee Meeting Fees
 Annual Equity Award
  Named Executive Officer Compensation Summary
  Name
    
    Title
    
    SalaryStephen J. Harrison
    
    Chief Executive Officer
    
    $
    500,000Edward L. Pierce
    
    President
    
    
    400,000Kevin P. Cohn
    
    Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
    
    
    250,000Dan L. Walker
    
    Senior Vice President  Operations
    
    
    240,000Keith E. Bornemann
    
    Vice President  Corporate Controller
    
    
    160,000
    Additional Information
Exhibit 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-31699; 333-60099;
333-82260; and 333-137025 on Form S-8 of our reports dated March 30, 2009, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Coldwater
Creek Inc. (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 158, Employers' Accounting for Defined
Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plansan amendment of FASB Statements No. 87, 88, 106, and
132(R)), and the effectiveness of Coldwater Creek Inc.'s internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Coldwater Creek Inc. for the year ended January 31, 2009.

/s/DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Boise,
Idaho
March 30, 2009

---



QuickLinks
#### Thoesen v. Crowe.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.*

May 16,1890.)

Pleading—Bill of Particulars.

Where the answer, in an action for goods sold, stated that some of the goods had been returned to and accepted by plaintiff, that others had never been purchased or received, and that defendant had paid more than the price of the goods delivered to him, defendant will be required to serve a bill of particulars of the articles declined and returned, but not to state therein what articles he was willing to admit had been delivered to him.

Appeal from special term, New York county.

Action by Henry Thoesen against Thomas D. Crowe. Defendant appeals from an order directing him to serve a bill of particulars.

Argued before Van Brunt, P. J„ and Brady and Daniels, JJ.

*Jacob L. Haines,*for appellant. *Howard Van Burén,*for respondent.

Daniels, J.

The action was brought to recover the price of goods sold and delivered by the firm of Thoesen & Uhl to the defendant. The plaintiff alleged himself to have acquired the interest of his copartner in the demand, and a bill of particulars of the goods forming it was served. The defendant’s *178answer stated that divers articles in the bill of particulars were returned to the firm, which they accepted and retained, and that the defendant never purchased or received from the firm divers articles of merchandise charged in their bill of particulars. And the order from which the appeal has been brought directed the defendant to serve a bill of particulars of the articles in this manner referred to in the answer, and so far the order seems to have been entirely right. It was further averred in the answer that the defendant had paid the firm more than the price of the goods alleged to have been delivered to him. Of these payments a bill of particulars had been served, and that fact is stated in the order; but the defendant was directed to serve a bill of particulars of the amounts and names of the articles which are stated in the defendant’s answer to have been sold by the firm to him. This clause of the order was entirely unnecessary, and it had no substantial support from anything appearing on the hearing of the motion. The defendant was not bound to make any statement to the plaintiff indicating what articles in the bill of particulars he was willing to admit the firm had delivered to him. *Goddard*v. *Medicine Co.,*52 Hun, 85, 5 N. Y. Supp. 119. All that he could be required to do was to serve a bill of particulars of the articles declined and returned to the firm. This last direction contained in the order should be reversed and set aside, and the residue affirmed, without costs of the appeal to either party. All concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE QUARTER ENDED NOVEMBER 30, 1996, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1996
<CASH>                                          14,142
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    480,918
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               510,060
<PP&E>                                           2,160
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 518,320
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,564
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           157
<OTHER-SE>                                     323,259
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   519,320
<SALES>                                          7,551
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,551
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                32,940
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,791
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (31,180)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (31,180)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Michael P. Yastrzemski, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

Submitted January 16, 2007;

decided March 22, 2007

*897Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
#### Marco Israel VILLAFRANCO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 09-71316.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*648Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 25, 2011.

Moby Torres, The Torres Law Firm, Chula Vista, CA, for Petitioner.

OIL, Hillel Ryder Smith, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Marco Israel Villafranco, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his motion for a continuance. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to continue, and review de novo questions of law. *Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey,*526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). We denied the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion or deny due process by denying Villafranco’s request for a continuance because he did not demonstrate good cause for one. *See 8*C.F.R. § 1003.29 (an IJ may grant a motion for continuance for good cause shown); *see also Sandoval-Luna,*526 F.3d at 1247. The agency did not err in con-eluding Villafranco failed to show eligibility for adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) where he was never inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States. *See Ortega-Cervantes v. Gonzales,*501 F.3d 1111, 1114-19 (9th Cir.2007).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### HIRSCHBERG, Appellant, v. METROPOLITAN ST. RY. CO., Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

December 11, 1896.)

Action by Michaeiis ITirschberg, as administrator, against the Metropolitan Street Railway Company.

S. Fleischman, for appellant.

Brownson Ker, for respondent.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.