alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Carlos Mario LONDONO, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-72274.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 26, 2008.*

Filed Sept. 8, 2008.

*563Carlos Mario Londono, Florence, AZ, pro se.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, District Counsel, Office of the District Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Phoenix, AZ, Leah V. Durant, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: SCHROEDER, KLEINFELD, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Carlos Mario Londono, a native and citizen of Colombia, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for lawful permanent resident cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo due process claims. *Padilla v. Ashcroft,*334 F.3d 921, 923 (9th Cir.2003). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

The agency denied Londono’s cancellation of removal application in the exercise of discretion. We lack jurisdiction to review this determination. *See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft,*327 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir.2003) (“We [have] interpreted [8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i)] to encompass all discretionary decisions involved in the cancellation of removal context, including the ultimate discretionary decision to deny relief.”); *see also Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales,*424 F.3d 926, 929-30 (9th Cir.2005).

Londono contends that he was denied a full and fair hearing because the IJ failed to advise him to apply for asylum and voluntary departure. We agree with the BIA that Londono was not prejudiced. He pointed to no evidence that his fear of persecution in Colombia was based on a protected ground, and he did not have a reasonable possibility of being eligible for voluntary departure. *Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (to prevail on a due process challenge, an individual must show error and substantial prejudice); *cf. Bui v. INS,*76 F.3d 268, 270 (9th Cir.1996) (IJ must inform an alien of “a reasonable possibility that the alien may be eligible for relief’). Our conclusion that Londono was not prejudiced also disposes of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. *Iturribarria v. INS,*321 F.3d 889, 899-900 (9th Cir.2003) (to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a petitioner must demonstrate that counsel’s *564conduct may have affected the outcome of proceedings).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part, DENIED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 13

- 00227

- CV

Elizabeth GUPTA

, Appellant

v.

MIDLAND FUNDING LLC

, Appellee

From the 341st Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012CVF000115 D3

Honorable Rebecca Ramirez Palomo, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE STONE

, JUSTICE MARION , AND JUSTICE MARTINEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is

AFFIRMED. It is ORDERED that no costs shall be assessed against ap pellant, Elizabeth Gupta,

in relation to this appeal because she qualifies as indigent under T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 20.

SIGNED July 23, 2014.

_____________________________ Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
<PAGE>


                                                                    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

                    ----------------------------------------

In connection with the Annual Report of RG Global Lifestyles, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2007, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Grant King, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2001, that:

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

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

Dated:  July 13, 2007

                                         /s/ Grant King
                                         -----------------------
                                         Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>


                                   EXHIBIT 23


                         Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement on
Form S-8 previously filed by Peoples Ohio Financial Corporation on February 21,
2002 and October 31, 2002, of our report dated August 3, 2005 on the
consolidated financial statements of Peoples Ohio Financial Corporation, as of
June 30, 2005 and 2004 and for each of the years in the three year period ended
June 30, 2005, which report and financial statements are contained in the Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2005.


                                                           BKD, LLP


Cincinnati, Ohio
September 22, 2005
No. 165.

#### Averill, Insurance Commissioner, *v.*Northwestern National Ins. Co.

Argued December 10, 1931.

. Decided December 14, 1931.

*Per Curiam:*

The order granting an interlocutory injunction is affirmed *(Alabama*v. *United States,*279 U. S. 229, 231) without prejudice to further con*591sideration of the merits of the cause, and without prejudice to the power and duty of the District Court, as specially constituted, to inquire and determine whether the court has jurisdiction, both in relation to the amount involved in the controversy and with respect to the right of the complainant to' maintain this suit in equity.

*Mr. I. H. Van Winkle,*Attorney General of Oregon, with whom *Mr. Willis S. Moore,*Assistant Attorney General, was on the brief, for appellant.

*Mr. Thomas MacMahon,*with whom *Mr. Guy E. Kelly*was on the brief, for appellee.
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of HL Ventures Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending April 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Deniz Hassan, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss.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.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
9th day of June, 2008.


/s/ Deniz Hassan
-----------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
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

     In connection with the Annual Report of China Automotive Systems, Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-KSB for the period ended  December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned,  Daming  Hu,  Chief  Financial  Officer of the  Company  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  13a-14(b)
          or 15d-14(b) 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/ DamingHu
-----------------------
Daming Hu
Chief Financial Officer

April 16, 2004
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO EXCHANGE ACT RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Titanium Asset Management Corp. (the
Registrant);
 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 the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 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; andc)
    
    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
(the Registrants fourth quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonable 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; andb)
    
    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.
 Dated: August 11, 2009
    
    /s/ Larry Haslee

Larry HasleeChief Financial Officer
NO. 12-09-00140-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

TONY WHITE a/k/a ANTHONY WHITE, § APPEAL FROM THE 7TH

APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Appellant pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver.

Sentence was imposed on March 23, 2009. We have received the trial court's certification showing

that this is a plea bargain case and Appellant has no right to appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). 

A defendant in a plea bargain case has only a limited right to appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P.

25.2(2). A plea bargain case is one in which a defendant pleaded guilty or nolo contendere and the

punishment did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the

defendant. Id. In such cases, a defendant may appeal only (1) those matters that were raised by

written motion filed and ruled on before trial, or (2) after getting the trial court’s permission to

appeal. TEX.R. APP. P. 25.2(2)(A), (B). Here, the record does not show that the trial court ruled on

any of Appellant’s pretrial motions prior to the entry of his guilty plea or that the trial court gave

Appellant permission to appeal. Therefore, the record supports the trial court’s certification. See

Greenwell v. Thirteenth Court of Appeals, 159 S.W.3d 645, 649 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Dears

v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 614-15 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Moreover, we note that the record

includes a signed, written waiver of Appellant’s right to appeal, signed byAppellant and his counsel.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Opinion delivered May 13, 2009.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
Exhibit 32.2

STATEMENT OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 1350

I, Jerry Collazo, the Chief
Financial Officer of Orange 21 Inc. (the Company), certify for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code that, to the best of my knowledge,

(i) the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006 (the Report), fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

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



By

/s/ Jerry CollazoJerry CollazoChief Financial OfficerApril 16, 2007
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 Logistical Support, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Bruce
Littell, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Accounting 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 3(a) or
15(d) of the Securities and 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/ Bruce Littell
                           -----------------------------
                           Bruce Littell
                           Chief Executive Officer and Chief Accounting Officer
                           April 15, 2005
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Michael HOUNCHELL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-6581.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 19, 2010.

Decided: Nov. 1, 2010.

John Michael Hounchell, Appellant Pro Se. Maxwell B. Cauthen, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

John Michael Hounchell seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hounchell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
# C_2010307EN.01000301.xml

| 12.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 307/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 307/3

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant position given at its meeting of 6 November 2009 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/38.589 — Heat Stabilisers (2)

Rapporteur: Malta

2010/C 307/03

| 1. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission that a fine should be imposed on the addressees of the draft decision with regard to the infringements. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission that a fine should be imposed on the addressees of the draft decision with regard to the infringements.

| 2. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission's reasoning on the basic amount of the fines. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission's reasoning on the basic amount of the fines.

| 3. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission on the increase of the basic amount due to aggravating circumstances. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission on the increase of the basic amount due to aggravating circumstances.

| 4. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission on the application of the 2002 Leniency Notice for immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission on the application of the 2002 Leniency Notice for immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases.

| 5. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the final amounts of the fines. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the final amounts of the fines.

| 6. | The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Official Journal of the European Union

---
Amendment to Employment Agreement


     

     

    AMENDMENT
      TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

    
      


      


      AMENDMENT
        (the “Amendment”) dated October 19, 2005 to the Employment Agreement dated as of
        April 6, 2004 (the “Shailubhai Employment Agreement”) by and between Synergy
        Pharmaceuticals Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Kunwar
        Shailubhai, an individual (the “Executive”).

      


      WHEREAS,
        the parties desire to amend the Shailubhai Employment Agreement to increase
        the
        amount of compensation to be paid upon termination;

      


      NOW
        THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing facts and mutual agreements
        set
        forth below, the parties, intending to be legally bound, agree as
        follows:

      


      1.        
        Amendment
        to Shailubhai Employment Agreement. 
        The Shailubhai Employment Agreement is hereby amended as follows:

      


      1.1        
        Section
        4.3 is hereby amended by changing thirty (30) days to ninety (90) days in
        the
        third sentence of Section 4.3. 

      


      2.        
        Ratification. 
        The Shailubhai Employment Agreement is ratified and confirmed and shall continue
        in full force and effect as amended hereby. 

      


      3.        
        Headings
        and Captions. 
        The
        headings and captions of the various subdivisions of this Amendment are for
        convenience of reference only and shall in no way modify or affect the meaning
        or construction of any of the terms or provisions hereof.

      


      4.        
        Counterparts. 
        This
        Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts, and by different parties
        hereto on separate counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original,
        but
        all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. This
        Agreement may be executed by facsimile with original signatures to
        follow.

      


      
        
          
          

        

        
          
          

          
            

          

        

        
          
          

        

      

       

      IN
        WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment or caused
        this
        Amendment to be executed by their duly authorized representatives as of the
        date
        first above written. 

    

    
       

      
        	 	 	 
	 	
                SYNERGY
                  PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

              
	 
 	 
 	 
 
	 	By:  	/s/
                Gary S. Jacob
	 	
                

              
	 	
                Gary
                  S. Jacob

                Chairman
                  of the Board

              
	 	 
	 	 
	 	/s/ Kunwar Shailubhai
	 	
                

              
	 	Kunwar Shailubhai