alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE v. Eric Glenn LANE.

No. 606A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 6, 2006.

C. Branson Vickory, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 12th day of April 2006 by Defendant for Extension of Time for Court Reporter to Deliver Transcripts:

"Motion Allowed. Court reporter shall have up to and including the 9th day of June 2006 to prepare and deliver transcript to counsel. By order of the Court in conference this the 6th day of April 2006."
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSEFINA NINO BIBIANO; MARLON

NINO BIBIANO,

Petitioners,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney

General,

Respondent. No. 15

- 73128

Agency Nos. A202

- 098

- 224

A202

- 098

- 225

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 10, 2022 * *

Pasadena, California

Before: TALLMAN and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN, ** * Dist rict

Judge.

Josefina Nino Bibiano and derivatively her son , natives and citizens of

* 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).

*** The Honorable Edward R. Korman, United States District Judge for

the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

MAR 14 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

Mexico

, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing

their appeal from the I mmigration J udge’s decision denying their application s for

asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against

Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that Petitioners

failed to establish eligibility for asylum. See Sharma v. Garland , 9 F.4th 1052,

1060 (9th Cir. 2021)

. Petitioners are not “refugee [ s ],” as defined in the Refugee

A ct of 1980

. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). Petitioners did not show past persec ution

because they were not harmed in Mexico and it appears that the anonymous threats

were a case of mistaken identity

. See Sharma , 9 F.4th at 1061. The record does

not compel a conclusion otherwise. See id

.

Nor did Petitioners establish an objective ly reasonable fear of persecution on

account of a protected ground. See id. at 10 65

– 66. 1 Petitioners’ f ear of crime and

general lawlessness in Mexico is insufficient to establish eligibility for asylum.

See Singh v. I.N.S. , 134 F.3d 962, 9 67 (9th Cir. 1998) ; see also Zetino v. Holder

,

622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) ( “ An alien ’s desire to be free from harassment

by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no

1 T he BIA held that Petitioners ’ imputed particular social group argument was

waived because it was not raised to the IJ and was not properly presented to the

Board

. Petitioners have not offered any valid basis for reversing that

determination.3

nexus to a protected ground .” ).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED

.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 Section 1350 Certification of Principal Executive Officer
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003
 
  
 1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ JAMES H. LONGJames H. LongChief Executive OfficerMarch 18, 2008
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Christopher Lynn Vuicich

, * From the 90th District

Court of Stephens County,

Trial Court No. F34011

.

Vs. No. 11

- 13

- 00380

- CR * April 23, 2015

The State of Texas

, * Memorandum Opinion by Willson , J

. (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson , J. , and Bailey, J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that

there is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this

court ’ s opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           9,445
<SECURITIES>                                        23
<RECEIVABLES>                                   51,929
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,985
<INVENTORY>                                     16,666
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                86,991
<PP&E>                                          34,340
<DEPRECIATION>                                  16,905
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 143,869
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           51,712
<BONDS>                                         49,641
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           148
<OTHER-SE>                                      38,319
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   143,869
<SALES>                                        188,665
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               188,665
<CGS>                                          125,453
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  125,453
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                49,760
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,034
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,726
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,211
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,305
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,906
<DISCONTINUED>                                   (305)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (194)
<CHANGES>                                        (360)
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,047
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .14
        

</TABLE>
STATE v. EVERETTE.

No. COA05-1385.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed July 5, 2006.

Certification Date July 25, 2006.

Appeal from Edgecombe (03CRS7001, 03CRS7002, 03CRS7003, 03CRS7004.

Case without published opinion. No error.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-17-00419-CR

BRANDON DESHAWN HUMES,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from

Criminal District Court No. 1

of Tarrant County (1483296D)

February 14, 2019

Opinion by Justice Pittman

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _/s/ Mark T. Pittman_________________

 Justice Mark T. Pittman
STATE v. WILSON.

No. COA05-729.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed July 18, 2006.

Certification Date August 7, 2006.

Appeal from Forsyth (03CRS57336, 03CRS57337, 03CRS57338, 03CRS10718).

Case without published opinion. No error in part; remanded in part.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of - )

)

BOH Bros. Construction Co., L.L.C. ) ASBCA No. 62906

)

Under Contract No. W912P8-13-C-0052 )

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: Kenneth K. Sorteberg, Esq.

 Huddles Jones Sorteberg & Dachille, P.C.

 Columbia, MD

Matthew R. Gerrish, Esq.

William Martin, Esq.

 Keller North America, Inc.

 Hanover, MD

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Michael P. Goodman, Esq.

 Engineer Chief Trial Attorney

Thomas M. Taff, Jr., Esq.

 Engineer Trial Attorney

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: June 27, 2023

J. REID PROUTY

Administrative Judge

Vice Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals
2

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the 

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 62906, Appeal of BOH 

Bros. Construction Co., L.L.C., rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: June 27, 2023

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-30018 Summary Calendar

WARREN HENRY, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus JOHN P. WHITLEY, Warden; RICHARD P. IEYOUB, Attorney General, State of Louisiana, Respondents-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 96-CV-1678

- - - - - - - - - - October 13, 1997 Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Warren Henry, Louisiana prisoner # 77111, appeals the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas application. Henry argues that the sentencing judge’s arbitrary and capricious refusal to even consider the sentencing guidelines or the sentencing alternatives available under the statute amounts to a deprivation of liberty in violation of the Due Process Clause. It is not this court’s function in a habeas proceeding to review a state’s interpretation of its own law. Weeks v. Scott , 55 F.3dNo. 97-30018 -2- 1059, 1063 (5th Cir. 1995). However, to the extent that such review is required by due process implications, the sentencing judge did consider whether a lesser sentence would deprecate the seriousness of the crime, and he also considered Henry’s history of criminal conduct, which in the judge’s mind weighed against a probated sentence. The judge also stated that there were no extraordinary circumstances, which would take into account mitigating factors. The state court’s finding that the judge complied with the state statute, and the state court’s conclusion that the sentencing judge was aware of, and properly exercised, his discretion, did not involve an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see Carter v. Johnson , 110 F.3d 1098, 1103 (5th Cir. 1997), petition for cert. filed , No. 97-5538 (Aug. 8, 1997). Henry argues that the resentencing hearing should have been held before a different judge than the one who imposed the original sentence. He contends that the judge used the resentencing hearing as a forum for justifying his earlier ruling rather than giving adequate consideration to the sentencing guidelines. A due process violation does not automatically result from resentencing by the same judge. “Absent proof that the judge would refuse to exercise sentencing alternatives due to actual bias or partiality, no federal constitutional right is threatened.” Every v. Blackburn , 781 F.2d 1138, 1141 (5th Cir. 1986). There is no proof that the judge was biased or impartial.No. 97-30018 -3- Henry has not shown that the state court’s decision involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Carter , 110 F.3d at 1103.

AFFIRMED.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Petty, Chaf in and Senior Judge Annunziata

WALTER P. PHEASANT MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 2302-13-4 PER CURIAM APRIL 1, 2014 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Alaina M. Dartt; Ashcraft & Gerel, LLP, on brief), for appellant. (Michael P. Kozak, Senior Assist ant County Attorney , on brief), for appellee.

Walter P. Pheasant appeals a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission finding that his work environment did not contribute to his back injury and his injury did not arise out of his employment. We have revi ewed the record and the commission’s opinion and find that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the commission in its final opinion. See Pheas ant v. Chesterfield Cnty, VWC File No. VA00000686906 (Nov. 1, 2013). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequate ly presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional pr ocess. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27.

Affirmed.

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.UNPUBLISHED
STATE v. Paul Dewayne CUMMINGS.

No. 1A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 13, 2006.

William P. Hart, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Ben David, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 11th day of April 2006 by Defendant to Bypass the Court of Appeals:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 13th day of April 2006."
Kathlyn Marie STEIN and Michael Hootstein v. ASHEVILLE CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Cooperative Learning Center (also known as Wolfe Creek School), now Buncombe Community School West, at the time administered jointly by Blue Ridge Human Services Facilities, Inc. and/or Blue Ridge Mental Health and/or Asheville City Board of Education and/or Buncombe County Board of Education, Buncombe County Board of Education, Blue Ridge Center for Mental Health, and Blue Ridge Area Authority.

No. 128A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 29, 2006.

David W. Hood, Michael J. Barnett, Hickory, for Cooperative Learning Center, et al.

Mark A. Leach, Winston-Salem, Leslie O. Wickham, Jr., Durham, for Stein & Hootstein.

Richard Schwartz, Raleigh, Michael Delafield, for Asheville City Bd. of Education.

K. Dean Shatley, II, Asheville, for Buncombe County Bd. of Education.

Prior report: 360 N.C. 321, 626 S.E.2d 263.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiffs on the 7th day of April 2006 for rehearing of the decision of this Court pursuant to Rule 31, N.C. Rules of Appellate Procedure, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 29th day of June 2006."

Justice TIMMONS-GOODSON recused.
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.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration #17518 and #17519; South Dakota Disaster Number SD-00131]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of SOUTH DAKOTA (FEMA-4656-DR), dated 06/29/2022. *Incident:*
                         Severe Storm, Straight-line Winds, Tornadoes, and Flooding. *Incident Period:*
                         05/12/2022.
 DATES: Issued on 06/29/2022. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         08/29/2022. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         03/29/2023.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 06/29/2022, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:*
                    Aurora, Beadle, Bon Homme, Brookings, Clay, Codington, Day, Deuel, Grant, Hamlin, Hanson, Hutchinson, Kingsbury, Lake, Mccook, Miner, Minnehaha, Moody, Roberts, Turner, Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota and the Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation. The Interest Rates are: Percent*For Physical Damage:*Non-Profit Organizations with Credit Available Elsewhere
1.875Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
1.875*For Economic Injury:*Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
1.875
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 17518 B and for economic injury is 17519 0. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008) Joshua Barnes, Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.


[FR Doc. 2022-15111 Filed 7-14-22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8026-09-P
Exhibit
32.1





Section
1350 Certification of Principal Executive Officer





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003





In
connection with the Annual Report of INX Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for
the year ended December 31, 2008 (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, James H. Long, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted
pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003, that:





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 the
      Company.




/s/ JAMES H. LONGJames
      H. LongChief
      Executive OfficerSeptember
      2, 2009










84
RIPELLINO v. BOARD OF EDUCATION.

No. 180A06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 31, 2006.

Stephanie H. Autry, Rachel B. Esposito, Meredith T. Black, Raleigh, James R. Lawrence, Jr., for Johnston County Bd. of Ed.

*300Bradley N. Schulz, Smithfield, for Michael Ripellino, et al.

T. Carlton Younger, III, for School Boards, et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 27th day of July 2006 by Defendants (N.C. School Boards Association, et al) for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Defendants (N.C. School Boards Association, et al) shall have up to and including the 28th day of August 2006 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 31st day of July 2006."
BOONE EX REL. SKINNER v. MOORE.

No. COA05-1321-2.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed October 3, 2006

Certification Date October 23, 2006.

Appeal from Halifax (02CVS657)

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 (the Report) of APOLLO INVESTMENT CORPORATION (the
Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, MICHAEL S. GROSS, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:



(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 the Registrant.



|                     |  |                 
|-------------------- |  | ----------------
|/s/ Michael S. Gross
|Name:                |  | Michael S. Gross
|Date: August 3, 2005
BUSH v. STATE of Georgia, ex rel.

No. S06A0569.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

May 18, 2006.

Derrick Bush, Albany, for appellant.

Kenneth Bryant Hodges, III, Dist. Atty., Michael George Lambros, Ekonomou, Atkinson & Lambros, LLC, Atlanta, Willie Cecil Weaver, Albany, for Appellee.

SEARS, Chief Justice.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed without opinion pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 59.

*Affirmed without opinion.*

All the Justices concur.
STATE v. Jeffrey Lee CATES.

No. 355P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2005.

Christopher W. Brooks, Assistant Attorney General, Joel H. Brewer, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 5th day of July 2005 by Defendant to Proceed in Forma Pauperis:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 18th day of August 2005."
WALKER & STATEN v. FLEETWOOD HOMES.

No. 223A06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 11, 2006.

Philip J. Mohr, Winston-Salem, for Fleetwood Homes.

William F. Ward, III, for Walkers.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 10th day of May 2006 by Defendant for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Defendant (Fleetwood Homes) shall have up to and including the 2nd day of June 2006 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 11th day of May 2006."