alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Wausiman PEREIRA-BORGES; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-72565.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 4, 2006.*

Filed Dec. 8, 2006.

Glenn Y. Lum, Esq., San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Robert R. Homiak, U.S. Department of Justice, Environment and Natural Resource Div., Environmental Enforcement Section, Denver, CO, for Respondent.

Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Lead petitioner, Wausiman PereiraBorges, a native and citizen of Brazil, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, *Nagoulko v. INS,*333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir.2003), and we grant the petition for review and remand.

Pereira-Borges promptly corrected any inconsistencies regarding the dates of his three encounters with the police and testified consistently as to the dates for the remainder of the hearing. *See Smolniakova v. Gonzales,*422 F.3d 1037, 1046-47 (9th Cir.2005) (where the IJ failed to consider that petitioner immediately corrected her testimony, the IJ found an inconsistency where none exists). Likewise, an alleged inconsistency as to when PereiraBorges filed police reports is of minor import and does not go the heart of his claim of repeated targeting and abuse by the Brazilian police on account of his race and membership in a particular social group. *See Wang v. Ashcroft,*341 F.3d 1015, 1021 (9th Cir.2003) (rejecting inconsistencies that were not material to the heart of petitioner’s claim).

The BIA also accorded undue weight in its adverse credibility determination to a statement contained in an unauthenticated Form 1-213 (Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien). *See Murphy v. INS,*54 F.3d 605, 610-11 (9th Cir.1995) (an unauthenticated 1-213 merits little, if any, weight).

Finally, the BIA’s adverse credibility determination cannot rest on Pereira-Borg*623es’ failure to present copies of police reports. *See Kaur v. Ashcroft,*379 F.3d 876, 890 (9th Cir.2004) (where reasons underlying adverse credibility finding fail, applicants testimony is accepted as credible and no independent corroborative evidence is required).

Accordingly, we grant the petition for review and remand the case to the BIA to consider whether, accepting Pereira-Borges’ story as true, he is eligible for relief. *See INS v. Orlando Ventura,*537 U.S. 12, 16-17, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**EXHIBIT      32.1**

**Certificate      of Chief Executive Officer as required by 18 U.S.C. Section      1350**

|   | 1. | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;                and |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of                Cadence. |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                              |                                                                                                                                                         |                                    |
|---------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|
| Dated:               December 28, 2005  | By:                                                                                                                                                | /s/ WILLIAM              W. DENEAU |
|                                              |                                                                                                                                                              |
|                                              | Name:                  William W. DeneauTitle:                     President (Principal Executive                Officer) |

|   |   |   |   |
|--------|--------|--------|--------|
|   |   |   |   |
|   |   |   |   |

----
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - 40 CFR Part 52 
          - [AZ 099-0038; FRL-7000-1] 

# AGENCY:

                        Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).                               ( print page 33030)    

# ACTION:

Withdrawal of direct final rule.

# SUMMARY:

                        EPA is withdrawing direct final approval of the recision of rules from the Pinal-Gila Counties Air Quality Control District (PGCAQCD) portion of the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP) that were published in the                         **Federal Register**                         on May 1, 2001 (66 FR 21675).                     

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

The direct final rule published on May 1, 2001 is withdrawn as of June 20, 2001. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Al Petersen, Rulemaking Office, Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105; (415) 744-1135. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On May 1, 2001 (66 FR 21727), EPA proposed to approve the recision of various PGCAQCD rules from the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP). On the same day (66 FR 21675), EPA also published a direct final rule approving the recision of these rules from the SIP. The action provided a 30 day public comment period and explained that if we received adverse comments, we would withdraw the relevant direct final action. 

We did receive adverse comments, and are therefore withdrawing the direct final recision of all of the rules. We are not opening an additional comment period. We intend to finalize action on these rules based on the May 1, 2001 proposed action. 

# List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

      - Environmental protection
      - Air pollution control
      - Carbon monoxide
      - Incorporation by reference
      - Intergovernmental relations
      - Nitrogen dioxide
      - Ozone
      - Particulate matter
      - Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
      - Volatile organic compounds

Authority:42 U.S.C. 7401*et seq.*

Dated: June 6, 2001. 

Laura Yoshii, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 01-15482 Filed 6-19-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

BLAKE SMITH,

Petitioner

v.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF

ALLEGHENY COUNTY,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 128 WM 2016

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 28th day of February, 2017

, the Application for Leave to File

Original Process is GRANTED , and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus is DENIED

.
#### Jerome STRONG, Rev., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MERRILL LYNCH, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 11-15252.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.*

Filed March 5, 2012.

Jerome Strong, Rev., pro se.

Patricia Kruse Gillette, Jessica Susan Pers, Michelle A. Rojas, Orrick Herrington *&*Sutcliffe L.L.P., San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, 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).

*673MEMORANDUM **

Jerome Strong appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his employment action alleging race discrimination and harassment in violation of Title VII and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Leong v. Potter,*347 F.3d 1117, 1123 (9th Cir.2003), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Strong’s race discrimination claim because Strong failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he performed his job satisfactorily, whether similarly situated individuals outside his protected class were treated more favorably, or whether Merrill Lynch’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions were pretextual. *See id.*at 1124-25; *see also Brooks v. City of San Mateo,*229 F.3d 917, 923 (9th Cir.2000) (same analysis applies to Title VII and FEHA claims).

' The district court properly granted summary judgment on Strong’s racial harassment claim because Strong failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the alleged conduct was because of his race or was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of his employment. *See Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles,*349 F.3d 634, 642-44 (9th Cir.2004).

Strong’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.
W.R., a Minor Child, et al., petitioners, v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, et al.

No. 16-246.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

*378Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 13.1





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 Annual Report on Form 20-F of IRSA Inversiones
y Representaciones Sociedad Anónima (the
“Company”) for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the “Report”), Eduardo S. Elsztain, as Chief
Executive 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 and Exchange Act of 1934, except as
disclosed in “Item 15. Controls and Procedures
̶  A. Disclosure Controls and Procedures” of
the Report; and





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








IRSA Inversiones y Representaciones Sociedad
AnónimaOctober
31, 2016.
By:
/s/ Eduardo
S. ElsztainEduardo
S. ElsztainChief
Executive Officer





This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except as to the
extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed
by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
# FCM Data July 2014

SELECTED FCM FINANCIAL DATA AS OF July 31,&KFF0000 &K0000002014FROM REPORTS FILED BY September 05,&KFF0000 &K0000002014	&P of &N
EXHIBIT 32.2

                  Certification by the Chief Executive Officer
                     Pursuant to 18 U. S. C. Section 1350,
      as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


Pursuant to 18 U. S. C. Section 1350, I, Robert W. Raiford, hereby certify that,
to the best of my knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K of ENGlobal
Corporation for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 (the "Report") fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of ENGlobal Corporation.


Date:  March 15, 2007                                 //s// Robert W. Raiford
                                                      Robert W. Raiford
                                                      Chief Financial Officer


This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-K pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required
by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"). Such
certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing
under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the
extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 6
 

<CIK>     0000744822


<NAME>      Fidelity Investment Trust


<SERIES>

        <NUMBER>        161


        <NAME>      Fidelity Europe Capital Appreciation Fund


<MULTIPLIER>    1,000


       

<S>

<C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>

year


<FISCAL-YEAR-END>

oct-31-1997


<PERIOD-END>

oct-31-1997


<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>

351,841


<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>

381,912


<RECEIVABLES>

2,257


<ASSETS-OTHER>

0


<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>

0


<TOTAL-ASSETS>

384,169


<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>

9,725


<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>

0


<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>

2,395


<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>

12,120


<SENIOR-EQUITY>

0


<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>

275,635


<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>

22,458


<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>

12,092


<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>

4,580


<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>

0


<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>

61,740


<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>

0


<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>

30,094


<NET-ASSETS>

372,049


<DIVIDEND-INCOME>

7,704


<INTEREST-INCOME>

1,313


<OTHER-INCOME>

(985)


<EXPENSES-NET>

3,577


<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>

4,455


<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>

62,600


<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>

15,679


<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>

82,734


<EQUALIZATION>

0


<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>

2,856


<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>

16,016


<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>

0


<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>

20,197


<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>

11,230


<SHARES-REINVESTED>

1,399


<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>

201,858


<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>

2,653


<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>

18,436


<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>

0


<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>

0


<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>

2,197


<INTEREST-EXPENSE>

5


<GROSS-EXPENSE>

3,698


<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>

335,412


<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>

14.070


<PER-SHARE-NII>

 .200


<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>

3.810


<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>

 .230


<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>

1.290


<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>

0


<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>

16.570


<EXPENSE-RATIO>

110


<AVG-DEBT-OUTSTANDING>

0


<AVG-DEBT-PER-SHARE>

0



        



</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
32.1








SECTION
1350 CERTIFICATION








In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Teen Education Group,  Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter  ending March 31, 2009
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"),  I, Robert L.  Wilson,  President 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, to my
knowledge:





(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:
March 30, 2010











By: /s/
ROBERT L. WILSON


___________________________


Robert L.
Wilson


President


(Principal
Executive Officer),


and
Director
_.. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXJiS **AUFIIN**

Em. 8. 8. 3uchaw, Jr. county Attorney valVarce CountY a

## 671

## 672

## 673

‘Elea. 8. B. Ruehauan, ST., pa&o 4

states the rule to be as tollew 8tPa,Ro4Rl of the opiniona
-+_* * It ia a settledrule 0r lw in this state that,where E aom%ssioaers~ court erased8 its p0mmr,attmptr to allw and aettls a@oountsmt IegallJ- ehargeablo 

### a&rut the 6uuaty, ltn sots am told and may ba rerokod **at** any time, or ray bo attwko6 aollatorally ina omM ai general **jurlsdi6tlon.** iTX7F BAvZS COUNTIT. **DAVIS,** TU, alV.App-, 1sE 8.U. em; Crrlcw~ ccmnTYr. FOX, Ta. can. hQ& k S.U. ted)4S3 ~~TlBB&ftOS.1. PA%%N, !fex. ar. APR., 844.. .I) 

### or 00~~16,**the** 

### ponr of **the aomlsnlonerS** * **newt,** in the langue&~ or ~bdlvlni~n 10 ef Irrtlqls 8S61,Rew06 CivilStatuttas,

to ***audit aad**  nettle **all** aewuatr agalmbt 'theaqunty and dlrecit'thelr **gt**yxmat=m#ybaexeralnedenly **-** 6tnto alaims legally ohargss e **agalmt** tb sail&y.

see, also, the **canes**ef -

xn t&i8 ooswotion wo eal.l7mrattentlm?io mtiale l!#Se,

**Rdned** Cirilk&e8 Or Texas, rhioh **pro** tides lu parts

*The **aouaty jud**  e

f shall, borore

## l nte?bMJ upon the **autles** of h 6 **ofrloe** exeoutea bond pafablatothetteamrer oi ai* eewt7 to be approved bytha oomlsrl~~' imaPt Of hi8 runty, in a mm of not leas than Oxw Th@Usand me **wre** than TW Thousand INS-, thew.wM to be rired by tha -30milt&0&~@; C~UZ%, ocfndltfoned * * * t&at he will Obt'*ote of: glm his soasent to pay out 

### 6ountyrunde sraept for lawful purp08M.”

## 674

=mrore 

### enteringupon the duties or their offloe, the oouuty judge and eaoh oorsaisaloner shall t&e the ofiiolaloath, * l * Each oommissioner shall **exeonte** a bond to be approved by the oountj judge In ths aurnof Three **Thausaad** Dollars, payable to the ewnty 

### treasurer,ooodltloned + e * that he till not rots or gire his **oonstmt**to pay out **aounty runda**  areept for lawrul purpose8.*
you are, tltererore, 

### respeotfully

adti866 

### that it 1s the opinion of this departrentthat tb ~o30tlasiolUrs* aourtmay not 1egdllJr pay the olaia described In your own

### nuniaatlon.
#### Jagdish KAUR, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-72981.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 4, 2006.*

Filed Dec. 12, 2006.

*731Jagdish Kaur, Elkgrove, CA, pro se.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Aviva L. Poczter, Esq., Ari Nazarov, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: GOODWIN, RYMER and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Jagdish Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision summarily affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence and will uphold the IJ’s decision unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. *Malhi v. INS,*336 F.3d 989, 992-93 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial of asylum based on an adverse credibility finding. Kaur’s testimony conflicts with documentation provided by Canadian immigration officials regarding matters that go to the heart of her claim, including whether her daughter died in Canada, or in India at the hands of the police, and whether her husband traveled to Canada with her, or remained in India where the police detained and beat him. *See Li v. Ashcroft,*378 F.3d 959, 962-63 (9th Cir. 2004). Moreover, the IJ’s negative assessment of Kaur’s demeanor was specific and cogent, and therefore supports the adverse credibility finding. *See Singh-Kaur v. INS,*183 F.3d 1147, 1151 (9th Cir.1999).

Because Kaur failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 112 (Monday, June 11, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 31177]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14681]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Air Force

32 CFR Part 989

RIN 0701-AA56


Environmental Impact Analysis Process (EIAP); Correction

AGENCY: Department of the Air Force, DoD.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Air Force published in the Federal 
Register of March 28, 2001, a document concerning correcting 
amendments. This document corrects the inadvertent change to correcting 
amendment 45.

DATES: Effective on July 11, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jack Bush (HQ USAF/ILEB), 1260 Air 
Force Pentagon, Washington, DC 20330-1260, (703) 604-0553.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 32 CFR part 989, FR Doc. 01-7671 
published on March 28, 2001 (66 FR 16868) make the following 
correction. On page 16869, correcting amendment 45, Appendix C, 
paragraph A3.1.3, last sentence, correct ``USAF/ILEVP'' to read ``HQ 
USAF/ILEVP.''

    Dated: May 31, 2001.
Janet A. Long,
Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 01-14681 Filed 6-8-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-05-P