alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Merrick Jose MOORE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. J. SLOSS; et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 10-17054.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.*

Filed Jan. 10, 2012.

Merrick Jose Moore, Soledad, CA, pro se.

Barry Alves, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Merrick Jose Moore appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment as a matter of law for defendant Sloss following a jury trial in Moore’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation and violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Torres v. City of Los Angeles,*548 F.3d 1197, 1205 (9th Cir.2008), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(a) because Moore failed to present a legally sufficient basis for a reasonable jury to rule in his favor on either the retaliation or Eighth Amendment claim. *See*Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a) (“A motion for judgment as a matter of law may be made at any time before the case is submitted to the jury.”); *see also Hearns v. Terhune,*413 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir.2005) (listing elements of conditions-of-confinement claim and explaining that the duration of the deprivation is relevant); *Rhodes v. Robinson,*408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir.2005) (listing elements of a prisoner retaliation claim).

*707We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).

Moore’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Hristo Lyubomirov BARAMOV, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-72709.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 25, 2010.*

Filed June 14, 2010.

Allan A. Samson, Esquire, Law Office of Allan A. Samson, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Patrick James Glen, Esquire, Nehal Ka-mani, OIL, Aviva Poczter, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Le-Fevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Hristo Lyubomirov Baramov, a native and citizen of Bulgaria, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying *693his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, *Zehatye v. Gonzales,*453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006), and de novo due process claims, *Colmenar v. INS,*210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Baramov failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground because he did not demonstrate that his wife’s Roma ethnicity, or any other protected ground, was a central reason for the problems he experienced in Bulgaria. *See Parussimova v. Mukasey,*555 F.3d 734, 741-42 (9th Cir.2009). Accordingly, Baramov’s asylum claim fails.

Because Baramov failed to establish asylum eligibility, it necessarily follows that he cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. *See Zehatye,*453 F.3d at 1190.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Bar-amov failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured if returned to Bulgaria. *See Wakkary v. Holder,*558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir.2009).

Finally, Baramov’s contention that the BIA failed to consider his claims based on membership in a particular social group is not supported by the record. In addition, because the record indicates no error by the agency, we reject Baramov’s contention that the agency violated his due process rights. *See Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error for due process violation).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
Nos. 403 and 404.

#### Ashwander et al. *v.*Tennessee Valley Authority et al.

October 14, 1935.

*Mr. Forney Johnston*for petitioners.

*Solicitor General Reed*and *Messrs. James Lawrence Fly, John Lord O’Brian, Noel T. Dowling,*and *Paul A. Freund*for respondents.

Petition for writs of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael D. Hoyte, Appellant.

[874 NYS2d 856] —

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Stephen K. Bindley, A.J.), rendered February 22, 2006. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed. Present — Martoche, J.P., Centra, Garni and Gorski, JJ.
<Page>

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Post-Effective Amendment
No. 18 to Registration Statement No. 033-63935 of Variable Account D of Union
Security Insurance Company (formerly Fortis Benefits Insurance Company), on
Form N-4, of our report dated February 24, 2005, relating to the statements
of assets and liabilities of Variable Account D as of December 31, 2004, and
the related statements of operations for the year then ended and the
statements of changes in net assets for each of the two years in the period
ended December 31, 2004, appearing in the Statement of Additional
Information, which is incorporated by reference in such Registration
Statement, and to the reference to us under the heading "Experts" in such
Statement of Additional Information.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
Hartford, Connecticut
November 7, 2005
####                                                   EXHIBIT32: Rule 13a-14(b) Certification

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, theundersigned officer of Oro Volcanico Corp. (the “Company”) certifies that:

1.         The Quarterly Report on Form10-QSB of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2008 (the “Report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

2.         The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

 

Date:  August13, 2008                       By: /s/ Francis Mailhot    

                                                           Francis Mailhot, Chief Executive Officer 

                                                                        andChief Financial Officer
**Fidelity® Europe Fund**

**Class**/Ticker

**Fidelity Advisor**®**Europe Fund**

**A**/FHJUX**T**/FHJVX**B**/FHJWX**C**/FHJTX

**Summary Prospectus**

**January 25, 2014**
H. Res. 1168 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

March 12, 2010. 

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 

shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 

3650) to establish a National Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Program, to develop and coordinate a comprehensive 

and integrated strategy to address harmful algal blooms and 

hypoxia, and to provide for the development and implementation of comprehensive regional action plans to reduce harmful 

algal blooms and hypoxia. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under 

clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. In lieu of the amendment in the 

nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 

Science and Technology now printed in the bill, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in part A of the 

report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, 

shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions of the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, 
2 

•HRES 1168 EH 

and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Science and Technology; (2) the 

amendment printed in part B of the report of the Committee 

on Rules, if offered by Representative Flake of Arizona or his 

designee, which shall be in order without intervention of any 

point of order except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of 

rule XXI, shall be considered as read, shall be separately debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the 

proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
Exhibit 4.7

                              CERTIFICATE OF TRUST
                                       OF
                              QCH CAPITAL TRUST II

     This Certificate of Trust of QCH Capital Trust II (the "Trust") is being
duly executed and filed by the undersigned, as trustees, to form a statutory
trust pursuant to the Delaware Statutory Trust Act, 12 Del. C. ss. 3810 et seq.
(the "Act"), as follows:

          (i)  The name of the Trust is QCH Capital Trust II.

          (ii) The name and business address of the trustee of the Trust with a
               principal place of business in the State of Delaware is as
               follows: The Bank of New York (Delaware), White Clay Center,
               Route 273, Newark, Delaware 19711.

          (iii) This Certificate of Trust shall be effective upon filing with
               the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Certificate of Trust
in accordance with Section 3811 of the Act.


                                        /s/ Kenneth King
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Kenneth King, as Administrative Trustee


                                        /s/ Jonathan J.R. Dodd
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Jonathan J.R. Dodd, as Administrative
                                        Trustee


                                        THE BANK OF NEW YORK, as
                                        Institutional Trustee


                                        By: /s/ Remo J. Reale
                                            ------------------------------------
                                        Name: Remo J. Reale
                                        Title: Vice President


                                        THE BANK OF NEW YORK (DELAWARE), as
                                        Delaware Trustee


                                        By: /s/ Kristine K. Gullo
                                            ------------------------------------
                                        Name: Kristine K. Gullo
                                        Title: Vice President



\
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 Quarterly Report of Defense Solutions Holding, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (“Report”), I, David
V. DiFelice, Chief Financial/Accounting Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:





(1)
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(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 result of operations of the
      Company.





November
      23, 2009
              /s/ David V. DiFelice/s/
      David V. DiFeliceDavid
      F. DiFeliceChief
      Financial/Accounting
Officer
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Greg Jarman, the Principal Executive Officer of Omnicity Corp., and Don Prest, the Principal Financial Officer of Omnicity Corp., each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Omnicity Corp. for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2010, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Omnicity Corp.

Date: March 17, 2010"Greg Jarman"
Greg Jarman
Chief Executive Officer and a Director 
(Principal Executive Officer)

"Don Prest"
Don Prest
Chief Financial Officer and a Director 
(Principal Financial Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Omnicity Corp. and will be retained by Omnicity Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

__________
## Court of Appeals of the State of Geo rgia

ATLA NTA,

_________________ _ The Court of

Appeals he reby passes

the followi

ng order:
A14A1923. GARIN LEE DA NIEL v. THE STATE.
Garin Lee Daniel w as convicte d of traf ficking in c ocaine and

possession of marijuana, and his conviction was affirmed on appeal. See Daniel v. State , 306 Ga. App. 48 (701 SE 2d 499) (2010) . Danie l subsequently fil ed a m otion to set a side his judgm ent of conviction, challenging the validity of his arrest warrant, gra n d jury proceedin gs, and the ef

fectiven ess of tri al cou

nsel. T he trial c ourt dism issed the motion based upon D aniel’ s failure to raise a valid void

sentenceargum ent. Daniel filed a not

ice of app eal from

this ruling. A direct a ppeal lies from

an order denying

or dism issing a m

otion to correct

a
vo idsentence only if the defendant raises a colorable claim that the sentence i s, i n fact, void or il legal. S ee Harper v. State , 286 Ga. 216, n.1 (686 SE2d 786) (2009); Burg v. State , 297 Ga. App. 118, 119 (676 SE2d 465) (2009). A sentenc e is void only when the t

rial cour t impos es punishment

that the law does not allow. See Jordan v. State , 253 Ga. A

pp. 510, 51 1 (1) (559 S E2d 528) (2 002). Here, Da niel does not assertthat the trial court imposed a sentence the law does not allo w. Rat her, hetakes issue with his und erlyi

ng convictio n. The Supreme Court has made clear, however, that a motion se eking to ch allenge a n allegedl

y inval id or void j udgmen t of conviction

“is not one of th e establis hed proced ures for challengin g the validity of a judgm ent in a criminal case.” Roberts v. State , 286 Ga. 532 (690 SE2d 150) (2010). BecauseDaniel is not author ized to col laterall

y atta ck his convic tion in this manner, his appeal of the issue is hereby DISMISSED. See id.; see also Harper v. State , 286 Ga. 216, 218 (1) (686 SE2d 786) (2009) (overrul ing Chester v. S tate , 284 Ga. 1 62, 162-163 (2) (6 64 SE2d 2 20) (2008)) ; Matherlee v. State , 303 Ga. App. 765 ( 694 July 15, 2014SE2d 665) (2010).

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Offi

ce, Atlant a,_______________

___ I certify t hat the abo ve is a true extract from the minutes of the Court

of Appeals

of Georgia. Witness my sig natu re and the seal of said co urt hereto aff

ixed the day and year last above writt

en.
, Clerk. 07/15/2014
#### In the Matter of Board of Education of William Floyd Union Free School District, Appellant, v Gary Lemay, Respondent.

[874 NYS2d 813]—

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 and Education Law § 3020-a (5) to vacate a determination of a Hearing Officer dated March 22, 2007, which, after a hearing, and upon sustaining certain charges against the respondent, only suspended the respondent for six months without pay, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, J.), dated September 27, 2007, which denied the petition and confirmed the determination.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly confirmed the Hearing Officer’s determination to only suspend the respondent for six months without pay. The petitioner did not demonstrate any basis for vacating the determination under CPLR 7511 *(see*Education Law § 3020-a [5]), and the determination has a rational basis and is supported by the record *(see Matter of Board of Educ. of Great Neck Union Free School Dist. v Brandman,*286 AD2d 735, 736 [2001]; *Matter of Board of Educ. of Westhampton Beach Union Free School Dist. v Ziparo,*275 AD2d 411 [2000]; *cf. Matter of Binghamton City School Dist. [Peacock],*33 AD3d 1074 [2006]; *Matter of Board of Educ. of E. Hampton Union Free School Dist. v Yusko,*269 AD2d 445 [2000]). Mastro, J.P., Skelos, Dillon and Eng, JJ., concur.
No. 129.

#### Dick *v.*Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

October 14, 1935.

*Mr. A. Scott Thompson*for petitioner.

*Solicitor General Reed, Assistant Attorney General Wideman,*and *Messrs. James W. Morris*and *J. P. Jackson*for respondent.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
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



I, Markus R. Ernst, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 , that:



| | (1) | the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of GBS Enterprises Incorporated for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2013 (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 GBS Enterprises Incorporated.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date: August19, 2013 | /s/Markus R. Ernst                          
|-------------------- | --------------------------------------------
|                     | Markus R. Ernst                             
|                     | Chief Financial Officer                     
|                     | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
```

[Federal Register: July 21, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 139)]
[Notices]
[Page 39074]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr21jy98-37]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND PLACE: 2:00 p.m., Monday, August 3, 1998.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., N.W., Washington, D.C., 9th Floor Conference
Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Adjudicatory Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 98-19526 Filed 7-17-98; 3:32 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

----

**======== RETURN TO INDEX    ========**

----
No. 359, Misc.

#### Koenig *v.*Smith, Superintendent.

Petitioner *pro se.*

*Smith Troy,*Attorney General of the State of Washington, and *C. John Newlands,*Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

The motion to strike respondent’s brief is denied. The petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Washington is also denied.