alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Maria Teresa LOPEZ VILLEGAS, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-74565.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 8, 2008 *.

Filed Sept. 12, 2008.

*688John Wolfgang Gehart, Russell M. Jau-regui, Esquire, Carlos Vellanoweth, Esquire, Elena Yampolsky, Esquire, Vella-noweth & Gehart, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.

Kurt B. Larson, Esquire, OIL, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Maria Teresa Lopez Villegas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings. *Ram v. INS,*243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.2001). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

The evidence Lopez Villegas presented with her motion to reopen concerned the same basic hardship grounds as her application for cancellation of removal. *See Fernandez v. Gonzales,*439 F.3d 592, 602-03 (9th Cir.2006). We therefore lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that the evidence was insufficient to establish a prima facie ease of hardship. *See id.*at 601 (there is no jurisdiction where “the BIA determines that a motion to reopen proceedings in which there has already been an unreviewable discretionary determination concerning a statutory prerequisite to relief does not make out a prima facie case for that relief’).

Our conclusion that we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination that Lopez Villegas did not make out a prima facie case of hardship forecloses her argument that the BIA denied her due process by failing adequately to explain its reasons and address the entirety of the evidence she submitted. *See id.*at 603-04.

Contrary to Lopez Villegas contention, the BIA’s interpretation of the hardship standard falls within the broad range authorized by the statute. *See Ramirez-Perez v. Ashcroft,*336 F.3d 1001, 1004 (9th Cir.2003).

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.
**EXHIBIT
      21.1**





**SUBSIDIARIES
      OF AURORA OIL & GAS CORPORATION**




Celebration
      Mining Company (a Washington corporation)




Aurora
      Operating, LLC (a Michigan limited liability company)




Hudson
      Pipeline & Processing Co., LLC (a Michigan limited liability
      company)




Aurora
      Holdings, LLC (a Michigan limited liability company)




Indiana
      Royalty Trustory, LLC (a Michigan limited liability company)




Bach
      Services & Manufacturing Company, L.L.C. (a Michigan limited liability
      company)




Kingsley
      Development Company, L.L.C. (a Michigan limited liability company)




AOK
      Energy, LLC (a Michigan limited liability company)
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 112 (Monday, June 11, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31249-31250]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14561]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[OR-958-1430-ET; HAG-01-0206; OR-13498]


Expiration of Public Land Order; OR

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Public Land Order (PLO) No. 5820, which withdrew forest system 
lands from the mining laws to protect the Cow Creek Recreation and 
Administrative Site, was allowed to expire on January 21, 2001, in 
Douglas County, Oregon.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 11, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles R. Roy, BLM Oregon/Washington 
State Office, 503-952-6189.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Land Order (PLO) No. 5820, published 
in the Federal Register, 46 FR 6947, January 22, 1981 as FR Doc. 81-
2262, for the Forest Service, withdrew 120 acres of forest system lands 
from the mining laws to protect the Cow Creek Recreation and 
Administrative Site has been allowed to expire.
    At 8:30 a.m. on June 11, 2001, the segregative effect for the 
Federal

[[Page 31250]]

interests in the above mentioned PLO, is lifted, and the land opened to 
such forms of disposition as may by law be made of forest system lands, 
subject to valid existing rights, the provisions of existing 
withdrawals, other segregations of record, and the requirements of 
applicable law.

    Dated: May 24, 2001.
Robert D. DeViney, Jr.,
Chief, Branch of Realty and Records Services.
[FR Doc. 01-14561 Filed 6-8-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-33-P
####                                                   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 September 30, 2008 (the “Report”)fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange 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:  November13, 2008                  By: /s/ Francis Mailhot    

                                                           Francis Mailhot, Chief Executive Officer 

                                                                        andChief Financial Officer
##### 



Exhibit 14.1 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM To the Board of Directors
China Yuchai International Limited: We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement on Form
F-3 (No. 333-111106) of China Yuchai International Limited (the Company) of
our report dated March 24, 2004, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of the Company
and its subsidiaries as of December 31, 2002 and 2003, and the related
consolidated statements of income, cash flows, and changes in stockholders
equity for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2003,
which report appears in the annual report on Form 20-F of the Company for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2003. /s/ KPMG Hong Kong, June 29, 2004
#### Clarence Eugene HOWARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. NUNLEY, C.O.; W.J. Sullivan, Warden, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-17493.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*670Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.*

Filed Jan. 9, 2012.

Clarence Eugene Howard, Soledad, CA, pro se.

Kenneth T. Roost, Esquire, Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, 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 **

Clarence Eugene Howard, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his constitutional rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Wyatt v. Terhune,*315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir.2003) (exhaustion of administrative remedies); *Clement v. Gomez,*298 F.3d 898, 901 (9th Cir.2002) (qualified immunity). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment to defendant Nunley on Howard’s Eighth Amendment claim regarding the use of pepper spray on the basis of qualified immunity, because it is uncontested that Howard disobeyed an order to stop pounding on his cell door after he also received a warning that failure to comply would result in the use of pepper spray. *See Pearson v. Callahan,*555 U.S. 223, 232, 129 S.Ct. 808, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009) (“Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.”); *see also Whitley v. Albers,*475 U.S. 312, 320, 106 S.Ct. 1078, 89 L.Ed.2d 251 (1986) (no constitutional violation if force is applied in a “ ‘good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline’ ” (citation omitted)).

The district court properly concluded that Howard failed to exhaust his administrative remedies on his claim regarding *671the conditions of his confinement in a “management status” cell. *See Booth v. Churner,*532 U.S. 731, 741 n. 6, 121 S.Ct. 1819, 149 L.Ed.2d 958 (2001) (inmate must exhaust administrative remedies “irrespective of the forms of relief sought and offered through administrative avenues”).

Howard’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.
| (1)   | the      quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Goldspan Resources, Inc., for the quarter      ended January 31, 2009, 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 quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter      ended January 31, 2009, fairly presents in all material respects, the      financial condition and results of operations of Goldspan Resources,      Inc. |
|-----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:                            | /s/Alan Shinderman                                                              |
|--------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                           |                                                                            |
| Name:                          | Alan      Shinderman                                                            |
|                           |                                                                            |
| Title:     | Principal      Executive Officer, Principal      Financial Officer and Director |
|                           |                                                                            |
| Date:                          | March      17, 2009                                                             |
```

[Federal Register: August 9, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 152)]
[Notices]
[Page 43173]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr09au99-59]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Thursday, August 19, 1999.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., N.W., Washington, D.C., 9th Floor Conference
Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
    Rule Enforcement Review.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Catherine D. Dixon,
Assistant Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 99-20510 Filed 8-5-99; 11:36 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

----

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

----
```

[Federal Register: May 22, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 99)]
[Notices]
[Page 28370]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr22my98-65]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m., Monday, June 29, 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. 98-13869 Filed 5-20-98; 12:54 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

----

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

----
No. 215.

#### Ex parte General Public Utilities Corp.

October 14, 1935.

*Mr. Henry W. Killeen*for petitioner.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
exv4w2



 




Exhibit 4.2








CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We hereby consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Experts” in the Registration
Statement on Form F-8 to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on or
about October 24, 2005 and to the incorporation by reference therein of our report dated February
14, 2005 relating to the consolidated financial statements, and the financial statement schedule of
Inco Limited as at December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002 and for each of the years in the three-year
period ended December 31, 2004 and management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control
over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as at
December 31, 2004 which appears on page 134 of Inco Limited’s Annual Report of Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2004.




/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
 

Chartered
Accountants
 

Toronto,
Ontario

October 24, 2005



 




PricewaterhouseCoopers refers to the Canadian firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and the other member
firms of PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited, each of which is a separate and independent legal entity.
No. 381.

#### Board of Liquidation, City Debt of New Orleans, et al. *v.*Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans et al.

November 25, 1935.
```

[Federal Register: October 26, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 206)]
[Notices]
[Page 57107]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr26oc98-30]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m., Monday, November 2, 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. 98-28760 Filed 10-22-98; 4:03 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

----

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

----
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 Quarterly Report
of Jesters Resources, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended
April 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
here of (the "report"), I, Hao Zeng, Chief Executive Officer and 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.





Dated this 11th day of
June, 2009.








HAO
      ZENGHao
      ZengChief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer
No. 125.

#### Palmer Clay Products Co. *v.*Brown, Trustee.

October 14, 1935.

*Messrs. Frank H. Pardee, F. Paul Welsch,*and *Edward F. Smith*for petitioner.

*Messrs. Harrison J. Barrett*and *Matthew Brown*for respondent.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Municipal Court of Boston, County of Suffolk, Massachusetts, granted.
#### Alma Encarnacion, Respondent, v Tegford Realty LLC et al., Appellants.

[876 NYS2d 375]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson Jr., J.), entered October 15, 2008, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants dismissing the complaint.

Flaintiff fell on defendants’ staircase when her foot twisted in a “crater” or “hole” on the third step. The defect had appar*582ently been there since plaintiff moved into the building more than two years earlier, although at the time of the accident, she was on her way out for an activity, and was not paying attention as she descended the stairs.

Accepting that the photos in the record accurately depicted the condition of the steps on the date of the accident, defendants established a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment. The trivial depression in the step did not constitute a trap or nuisance, and was not actionable as a matter of law *(Guerriero v Jand,*57 AD3d 365 [2008]; *see generally Trincere v County of Suffolk,*90 NY2d 976 [1997]; *Gaud v Markham,*307 AD2d 845 [2003]).

Plaintiff’s submissions did not sufficiently raise an issue of fact. Her expert did not dispute that the depression in the step was no more than one-quarter inch. While he claimed that this differential was not trivial when combined with a 4.4% transverse slope in the staircase, he did not establish that such a slope constitutes a dangerous condition *(see Ryan v KRT Prop. Holdings, LLC,*45 AD3d 663 [2007]). Furthermore, plaintiff, in her bill of particulars and deposition testimony, did not claim that the accident was caused by the degree of slope to the next step. Plaintiff identified the spot on the step where she fell and did not establish that the entire step, with its minimal differentials, constituted a snare or trap, leaving her no safe place to walk. Rather, she testified that she was aware of the condition, had walked over it for years, had never tripped before, and was simply not paying attention this time when she fell. Nor did the deposition testimony of the building superintendent establish that the defect was a trap or snare, or was not trivial. Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Sweeny, Catterson and Renwick, JJ.
**Exhibit 10.2**
**INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ CONSENT**
     We consent to the use, in this Annual Report of British Sky Broadcasting GroupPlc on Form 20-F filed on November 7, 2002 (File No. 1-13488), which isincorporated by reference in the Registration Statement on Form F-3 filed onJanuary 26, 1998, (Registration No 333-8246), of our report dated July 24,2000, September 22, 2000 as to Note 25 (which expresses an unqualified opinionand includes an emphasis of matter paragraph relating to British InteractiveBroadcasting Holdings Limited’s recurring losses from operations andshareholders’ deficit which raises doubts about its ability to continue as agoing concern).
**DELOITTE & TOUCHE**
EXHIBIT 31.1

                                CERTIFICATIONS

I, William Tay, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of UniCapital
Acquisition Corp.;

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 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 small business issuer's other certifying officers 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 small business issuer
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 small business issuer,
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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

   (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.


Date: August 8, 2008

UniCapital Acquisition Corp.


/s/ William Tay
-------------------------------
William Tay, President and CEO
(Principal Executive and Financial Officer)