alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VICTOR MANUEL MORALES

- ABREGO,

Petitioner,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 20

- 72564 Agency No. A208

- 902

- 363

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 14, 2023 * *
Before: SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.
Victor Manuel Morales

- Abrego , a native and citizen of El Salvador , petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum and withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed

* 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). 

# FILED

MAR 17 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 72564

by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. W e review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr , 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We grant in part and dismiss in part the petition for review , and we remand

. The BIA denied asylum and withholding of removal on the basis that
Morales

- Abrego failed to establish a nexus to his particular social group “sibling of Luis Morales.” Substantial evidence does not support that determination. See
Parada v. Sessions , 902 F.3d 901, 910

- 11 (9th Cir. 2018) (evidence that appl icant was persecuted in retaliation for his brother’s conduct established nexus to family as a protected ground); Parussimova v. Mukasey , 555 F.3d 734, 741 (9th Cir. 2009) (an asylum applicant establishes that a protected ground was “one central
reason” fo r persecution where the persecutor would not have harmed the applicant absent that motive) ; see also Barajas

- Romero v. Lynch , 846 F.3d 351, 359

- 60 (9th Cir. 2017) (the less demanding “a reason” standard applies to withholding of removal claims)

. To the extent Morales

- Abrego raises a new particular social group in his opening brief, we lack jurisdiction to consider th e group because he failed to raise
it before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft , 358 F.3d 674, 677

- 78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdictio n to review claims not presented to the agency). Thus, we grant the petition for review in part and remand Morales

- Abrego ’s asylum and withholding of removal claims to the agency for any necessary further3 20

- 72564

proceedings consistent with this disposition. Se e INS v. Ventura , 537 U.S. 12, 16

- 18 (2002) (per curiam). The stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues. The government shall bear the costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED in part ; DISMISSED in part;
REMANDED
.
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 Monster Worldwide, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael Sileck, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| |  | By: | /s/MICHAEL SILECKMichael Sileck
Chief Financial Officer
March 4, 2005
| |  | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------

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

---



QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
ACCOMPANYING BALANCE SHEETS OF ORPHAN MEDICAL, INC. AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND
THE RELATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       2,895,765
<SECURITIES>                                 2,797,894
<RECEIVABLES>                                  863,936
<ALLOWANCES>                                    85,000
<INVENTORY>                                    413,659
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,954,295
<PP&E>                                         590,025
<DEPRECIATION>                                 334,862
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,209,458
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,836,706
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        110
<COMMON>                                        65,927
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,306,715
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,209,458
<SALES>                                      4,353,947
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,353,947
<CGS>                                          739,938
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  739,938
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             8,091,261
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (223,465)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,253,787)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,253,787)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,253,787)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.72)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.72)


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-48318, 333-48326 and333-57926) pertaining to the 2000 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, 2000 Omnibus Equity Incentive Plan, and 1997 Stock Option Plan of Docent, Inc. and the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-85494) of Docent, Inc. and in the related Prospectus ofour report dated January 23, 2004, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Docent, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2003. 

 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

 

San Jose, California 

March 12, 2004
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Essam K. Eliraky, Respondent. Crosslands Transportation, Inc., Appellant; Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[801 NYS2d 96]

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 19, 2004, which ruled that claimant and others similarly situated were employees of Crosslands Transportation, Inc.

Upon receiving claimant’s application for unemployment insurance benefits, the Commissioner of Labor determined that claimant, a limousine driver, had been an employee of Crosslands Transportation, Inc. Crosslands disputed that determination, alleging that claimant was an independent contractor. Following *1198several hearings, an Administrative Law Judge sustained the initial determination, which decision was upheld by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. Crosslands now appeals.

The existence of an employer-employee relationship is a factual determination for the Board to resolve, which will not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence *(see Matter of Lambert [Staubach Retail Servs. New England, LLC—Commissioner of Labor],*18 AD3d 1049, 1050 [2005]; *Matter of Stuckelman [Blodnick, Gordon, Fletcher & Sibell, P.C.—Commissioner of Labor],*16 AD3d 882, 882 [2005]). Here, the record established that, among other things, Crosslands maintained ultimate control over the vehicle driven by claimant, dictated which clients claimant serviced, handled the billing of clients and paid claimant on a regular basis. This evidence demonstrates that Crosslands exercised sufficient supervision and control over claimant to establish an employment relationship *(see Matter of Ted Is Back Corp. [Roberts],*64 NY2d 725, 726 [1984]; *Matter of Stuckelman [Blodnick, Gordon, Fletcher & Sibell, P.C.—Commissioner of Labor], supra*at 882). The fact that other evidence was presented in support of Crosslands’ contention that claimant acted as an independent contractor does not dictate a contrary result *(see Matter of Zelenka [Versace Profumi*USA— *Commissioner of Labor],*304 AD2d 927, 928-929 [2003]). Accordingly, we find no basis upon which to disturb the Board’s decision.

Peters, J.P., Spain, Carpinello, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
STATE v. Sherman WALL.

No. 137P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 27, 2007.

LaToya B. Powell, Associate Attorney General, John Snyder, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 19th day of March 2007 by Defendant for "Notice of Appeal":

"Motion Dismissed ex mero motu by order of the Court in conference this the 27th day of June 2007."
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 Eden  Bioscience Corporation (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the  period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities  and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),  I, Rhett R. Atkins,
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 2002, that:

(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of  section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of  1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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:  October
28, 2005

| | /s/
      Rhett R. Atkins                  
| | -------------------------------------------
| |                                            
| | Rhett
      R. Atkins                      
| | President
      and Chief Executive Officer

-30-

---
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION



In connection with the periodic report of Glenborough Realty Trust Incorporated (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,
2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Stephen R. Saul, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the
United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



(1)    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.



|      |  |                   |  | 
|----- |  | ----------------- |  | 
|      |  |                   | 
|Date: |  | November 14, 2003 |  | 
|      |  |                   |  | 
|      |  |                   |  |
STATE v. WEAVER.

No. COA06-1215.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed July 3, 2007.

Certification Date July 23, 2007.

Appeal from the Alamance (00CRS1308, 00CRS5381).

Case reported without published opinion. Dismissed in part, no error in part.
ESTATE OF JOEY MICHAEL QUESENBERRY, Deceased Employee, Plaintiff v. BIG CREEK UNDERGROUND, Employer, iSurity Insurance Services, Carrier, Defendants.

No. 405P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 16, 2006.

Barbara E. Ruark, Winston-Salem, for Big Creek Underground, et al.

Franklin Smith, Elkin, for Estate of Quesenberry.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 7th day of August 2006 by Defendants in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

*466"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th day of November 2006."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Financial Statements of The Travelers Life and Annuity Company and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000929498
<NAME> THE TRAVELERS LIFE AND ANNUITY COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                                 0
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                           0
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                               2,381,347
<CASH>                                          13,444
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                   0
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         454,878
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,048,239
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                999,582
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                  0
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                        7,360,447
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     519,787
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,048,239
<PREMIUMS>                                      16,585
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                            104,625
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                               1,820
<OTHER-INCOME>                                  72,544
<BENEFITS>                                      74,797
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                     30,331
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                             7,065
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 83,381
<INCOME-TAX>                                    29,155
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             54,226
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    54,226
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0


</TABLE>
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                            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 Roslyn Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joseph L. Mancino,
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 results of operations of the Company
     for the periods presented in the Report.



/s/ Joseph L. Mancino
------------------------
Joseph L. Mancino
Chief Executive Officer
March 24, 2003
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3352 Considered and Passed Senate (CPS)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3352

 To temporarily extend the programs under the Higher Education Act of 
                                 1965.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 28, 2008

  Mr. Reid (for Mr. Kennedy) introduced the following bill; which was 
        read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To temporarily extend the programs under the Higher Education Act of 
                                 1965.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF HIGHER EDUCATION PROGRAMS.

    (a) Extension of Programs.--Section 2(a) of the Higher Education 
Extension Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-81; 20 U.S.C. 1001 note) is 
amended by striking ``July 31, 2008'' and inserting ``August 15, 
2008''.
    (b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section, or in the 
Higher Education Extension Act of 2005 as amended by this Act, shall be 
construed to limit or otherwise alter the authorizations of 
appropriations for, or the durations of, programs contained in the 
amendments made by the Higher Education Reconciliation Act of 2005 
(Public Law 109-171), by the College Cost Reduction and Access Act 
(Public Law 110-84), or by the Ensuring Continued Access to Student 
Loans Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-227) to the provisions of the Higher 
Education Act of 1965 and the Taxpayer-Teacher Protection Act of 2004.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect as if enacted on July 31, 2008.
                                 <all>
```
STATE v. McSWAIN.

No. COA06-1235.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed August 21, 2007.

Certification Date September 10, 2007.

Appeal from Lincoln (04CRS53646, 06CRS748).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. No error.
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 856/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 856/2013 of 4 September 2013 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 856/2013                     

# of 4 September 2013

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural                           markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 4 September 2013.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President,*                            

Jerzy Plewa                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
STATE of North Carolina v. Elizabeth Paige McMAHAN.

No. 657PA05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 28, 2007.

On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 of a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeals, 174 N.C.App. 586, 621 S.E.2d 319 (2005), vacating probation revocation judgments entered 6 August 2004 by Judge Susan C. Taylor in Superior Court, Cabarrus County, thereby activating sentences imposed in judgments entered 8 August 2003 by Judge Howard R. Greeson, Jr. in Superior Court, Guilford County following defendant's plea of guilty to twenty-eight counts of embezzlement, and remanding for a new sentencing hearing. Heard in the Supreme Court 9 May 2007.

Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Amy C. Kunstling, Assistant Attorney General, and Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for the State-appellant.

*113Staples S. Hughes, Appellate Defender, by Matthew D. Wunsche, Assistant Appellate Defender, for defendant-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons stated in *State v. Holmes,* ___ N.C. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___, 2007 WL 1839407 (2007) (No. 283PA06), the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed.

REVERSED.