alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Bruce David HARRIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LENNAR CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 10-55024.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 28, 2011.

Bruce David Harrigan, Huntington Beach, CA, pro se.

Cindi Pusateri, Esquire, Meyer White LLC, Los Angeles, CA, William Robinson Stukenberg, Meyer Firm LLP, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.

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 **

Bruce David Harrigan appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his diversity action alleging state law claims against his former employer. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Knievel v. ESPN,*393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir.2005). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Harrigan’s claims concerning nonpayment of bonuses because he failed to allege facts suggesting that defendant was contractually bound to pay him. *See First Comm. Mort. Co. v. Reece,*89 Cal.App.4th 731, 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 23, 33 (2001) (the first element to a breach of contract claim is the existence of valid contract); *see also Rennich v. O.P.T.I.O.N. Care,*77 F.3d 309, 316 (9th Cir.1996) (there is no contract where a party explicitly chooses not to bind itself).

The district court properly dismissed Harrigan’s claim concerning attorney’s fees because he failed to allege facts suggesting that the defendant was obligated to reimburse him for such fees. *See*Cal. *693Civ.Proc.Code § 1021 (each party is to bear his own attorney’s fees unless a statute or the agreement of the parties provides otherwise).

Harrigan’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Appellee’s pending motion is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Southern Copper Corporation (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, GenaroGuerrero, Comptroller and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifypursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

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

 

 
|   | /s/ Genaro Guerrero                                 |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|   | Genaro Guerrero                                     |
|   | Vice President Finance and Chief Financial  Officer |

 

 

April 30,2008

 

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by section 906 has been providedto Southern Copper Corporation and will be retained by Southern CopperCorporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

56

----
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, January 21, 2020.

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.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, January 21, 2020

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A20A0745. ELIJAH MURRAY BLACKMAN v. THE STATE.

Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW 

THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion is hereby GRANTED.
# Próximos Enlaces Nacionales

USCIS lleva a cabo variados eventos para sus grupos de interés externos, en los cuales se comparte información e intercambian comentarios y sugerencias acerca de USCIS y sus políticas.

Nos concentramos en áreas de discusión específicas, mientras otros incluyen variedad de temas. Muchas de estas reuniones tienen números para conectarse telefónicamente o sesiones de seminarios web para los interesados que no puedan asistir en persona.

Haga click en los eventos de más adelante para ver información adicional, incluso instrucciones para confirmar asistencia (RSVP) y materiales de trasfondo.

**¿No puede encontrar lo que está buscando?**Para encontrar un evento de Enlace en su área, vaya a nuestra página Próximos Enlaces Nacionales. Para pedir un evento de Enlace en su área, visite nuestra página “Contacte Enlace”.

----

0 / 2000Para proteger su privacidad, por favor no incluya ninguna información personal en sus comentarios. Revise nuestra Política de Privacidad.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ALEJANDRO RODRIGUEZ,

 Appellant,

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-14-00124-CR

Appeal from the

County Criminal Court No. 4

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20120C12851)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the Appellant’s motion to dismiss appeal, and 

concludes the motion should be granted and the appeal should be dismissed, in accordance with 

the opinion of this Court. We therefore dismiss the appeal. This decision shall be certified 

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2015.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of OAO Technology Solutions, Inc. (the Company), pursuant to and for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



(1) The Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2003 (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 results of operations of the Company.



|Date: November 11, 2003 |  | By: |  | /s/ Charles A. Leader                                       
|----------------------- |  | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------
|                        |  |     |  | Charles A. Leader                                           
|                        |  |     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer                       
|                        |  |    
|                        |  | By: |  | /s/J. Jeffrey Fox                                           
|                        |  |     |  | J. Jeffrey Fox                                              
|                        |  |     |  | Senior Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to OAO Technology Solutions, Inc. and will be retained by OAO Technology Solutions, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### James Ewell, Respondent, v Lowes Moore, Defendant, and Woodstar Leasing Corp., Appellant.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Woodstar Leasing Corp. appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Delaney, J.), entered July 14, 1986, as denied its motion to compel the plaintiff to respond to certain questions propounded at an examination before trial.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

An order denying a motion to compel a witness to answer questions propounded at an examination before trial is akin to a ruling made in the course of the examination itself and as such is not appealable as of right *(see, Sainz v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.,*106 AD2d 500; *Roberts v Modica,*102 AD2d 886; *Aronofsky v Marine Park Chiropractic Center,*81 AD2d 570). This court had held on numerous occasions that "we are disinclined to grant leave to parties who have taken it upon themselves to perfect an appeal without leave to appeal” *(see, Roberts v Modica, supra,*at 886). Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed. Mollen, P. J., Brown, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1
 Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 Sarbanes-Oxley
 (1)
    
    the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2008 (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 results of operations
of the Company.
  /s/ Jeffry N. QuinnJeffry N. QuinnPresident, Chief Executive Officer and
Chairman of the Board
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 11, 2009 

d0831 

Order 

 

September 11, 2009 

138438 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 138438 

 COA: 287354 

Genesee CC: 05-016527-FH 

ROBERT JAMES BETTIS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 4, 2009 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
* Pursuant to 5 TH CIR . R. 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 5 TH CIR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED May 4, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-40747 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus PRESTON JOSEPH ROBINSON, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:03-CR-189-TH-WCR-1

-------------------- ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Before KING, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * This court affirmed the sentence of Preston Joseph Robinson. United States v. Robinson , 115 F. App’x 259 (5th Cir. 2004). The Supreme Court vacated and remanded for further consideration in light of United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Robinson v. United States , 125 S. Ct. 1949 (2005). This court requested and received supplemental letter briefs addressing the impact of Booker
.No. 04-40747 -2- Robinson argues that the district court erred under Booker in enhancing his sentence based on facts not admitted by him or found by a jury and in sentencing him under the mandatory guideline scheme held unconstitutional in Booker . Our review is for plain error due to his failure to raise an appropriate objection in the district court. See United States v. Mares , 402 F.3d 511, 520 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 43 (2005). Under the plain error standard of review, the appellant must show that (1) there is an error (2) that is clear or obvious and (3) that affects his substantial rights. United States v. Olano , 507 U.S. 725, 731-37 (1993). If these factors are established, the decision to correct the forfeited error is within this court’s sound discretion, which will not be exercised unless the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. at 736. The district court’s enhancement of Robinson’s sentence pursuant to a mandatory guideline scheme based on facts that were not found by a jury or admitted by him constituted error that was plain. See Mares , 402 F.3d at 520-21. Robinson argues that the error affected his substantial rights because it was structural or because prejudice should be presumed. However, these arguments are foreclosed. See United States v. Malveaux , 411 F.3d 558, 560 n.9 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 194 (2005). Because the record does not show that Robinson likely would have received a more lenient sentence if the district courtNo. 04-40747 -3- had acted under an advisory sentencing system, Robinson has not shown that the district court’s error affected his substantial rights. See Mares , 402 F.3d at 521. Nothing in the Supreme Court’s Booker decision requires us to change our prior affirmance in this case. Accordingly, we reinstate that affirmance. The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the annual report of Capital Growth Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Patrick C. Shutt, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and I, Jim McDevitt, the Chief Financial
and Accounting Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to l8 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 results of operations of the Company.

Dated: April 14, 2008



By:

/s/ Patrick C. ShuttPatrick C. Shutt, Chief Executive OfficerBy:

/s/ Jim McDevittJim McDevitt, Chief Financial and Accounting Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.

The
foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as an exhibit to the Report and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
Exhibit 99.1


                Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer
                       Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350


     Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, the
undersigned President and Chief Executive Officer of Ridgestone Financial
Services, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended June 30,
2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.


/s/ Paul E. Menzel
-------------------------------------
Paul E. Menzel
President and Chief Executive Officer
August 13, 2002
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 amended annual report of Trycera Financial, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A-3 for the year ended December 31, 2004, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies 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 results of
          operations of the Company.


Date:  July 19, 2005

/s/ Bryan Kenyon
Bryan Kenyon, Chief Financial Officer
#### B & B Manhattan, LLC, Appellant, v Petezi Sack et al., Respondents.

Submitted January 16, 2007;

decided March 22, 2007

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the Court of Appeals does not have jurisdiction to entertain it *(see*NY Const, art VI, § 3 [b]; CPLR 5602 [a]).
Exhibit 12

Chesapeake Funding LLC  COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES  (Dollars in thousands)

|                                           |  | Year ended
December 31, |         | Period from
June 24. 1999
(inception)
through
December 31, |  
|------------------------------------------ |  | ----------------------- | ------- | ---------------------------------------------------------- | -
|
|Earnings available to cover fixed charges: |  |                         |         |                                                            |  
|Income before income taxes                 |  | $                       | 84,646  |                                                            | $
|Plus: Fixed charges                        |  |                         | 63,831  |                                                            |  
|                                           |  |                         |         |                                                            |  
|Earnings available to cover fixed charges  |  | $                       | 148,477 |                                                            | $
|                                           |  |                         |         |                                                            |  
|Fixed charges:                             |  |                         |         |                                                            |  
|Interest expense                           |  | $                       | 63,831  |                                                            | $
|                                           |  |                         |         |                                                            |  
|Total fixed charges                        |  | $                       | 63,831  |                                                            | $
|                                           |  |                         |         |                                                            |  
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges         |  |                         | 2.33    | x                                                          |  
|                                           |  |                         |         |                                                            |  

---

QuickLinks
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GEYEL BEDOLLA-BALBUENA, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 17-70152 

Agency No. A205-299-631 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 29, 2022**

Seattle, Washington

Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

Geyel Bedolla-Balbuena petitions for review of a decision of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from an order of an immigration 

judge denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection 

under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We dismiss in part and deny in part 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

AUG 31 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review Bedolla-Balbuena’s challenge to the BIA’s 

determination that his asylum application was untimely. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3); 

Lanza v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 917, 924 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Our jurisdiction to review a 

rejection of an asylum application as untimely . . . is precluded by statute.”). The 

petition is dismissed in part on jurisdictional grounds.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Bedolla-Balbuena 

does not qualify for withholding of removal. Bedolla-Balbuena’s proposed social 

group of “those recently arriving from the United States,” is not cognizable. See

Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151–52 (9th Cir. 2010) (“‘[R]eturning 

Mexicans from the United States,’ . . . is too broad to qualify as a cognizable social 

group.”). 

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Bedolla-Balbuena 

failed to establish eligibility for CAT relief. The record does not compel the 

conclusion “that it is more likely than not,” 8 C.F.R. § 208.16, that BedollaBalbuena, if returned to Mexico, would be tortured “with the consent or 

acquiescence of, a public official acting in an official capacity or other person acting 

in an official capacity,” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18.

Because Bedolla-Balbuena’s CAT claim fails on the merits, so does the due 

process claim. See Lata v. I.N.S., 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring 
3 

error and prejudice to establish a due process violation). 

PETITION DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.