alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
---

Exhibit 32

Section 1350 Certifications

STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned is the Chief Executive Officer and Treasurer or Principal Accounting Officer of Sunset Suits Holdings, Inc.. This Certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.  This Certification accompanies the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Sunset Suits Holdings, Inc. for the three months ended March 31, 2010.

The undersigned certifies that such 10-Q Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such 10-Q Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of Sunset Suits Holdings, Inc. as of March 31, 2010.

This Certification is executed as of May 24, 2010.

By: /s/ Miroslaw KranikName: Miroslaw Kranik Title: Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer (Principal Executive, Financial and Accounting Officer)

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

The forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

---
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22

- 2216

ERNEST BOADU

,

Petitioner

,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

,

Respondent

.

On Petition for Review of a n Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

.

Submitted : September 19, 2023 Decided: January 5, 2024

Before RICHARDSON and RUSHING , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

ON BRIEF: Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy

, Assistant Attorney
General , Walter Bocchini, Senior Litigation Counsel , William C. Minick

, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-2216 Doc: 32 Filed: 01/05/2024 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM:

Ernest Boadu petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

(Board) affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) den ial of h is application

for special rule cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2) . The IJ denied relief

both on the merits and as a matter of discretion. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) , we

lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary denial of cancellation of removal unless Boadu

presents colorable legal or constitutional claims pursuant to 8 U .S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D)

. See

Gonzalez Galvan v. Garland , 6 F.4th 552, 557

- 58 (4th Cir. 2021). Upon review, we find

that Boadu’s challenge s to the adverse credibility finding and the Board’s affirmance of

the IJ without opinion , and his conclusory claim that the IJ violated his due process rights

by failing to consider the evidence

, are either not legal or not colorable and thus do not

qualify for this exception

.

Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. * We deny

the Attorney General’s motion for summary disposition as moot and dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

* Because the discretionary denial of relief is independently dispositive of Boadu’s application for cancellation of removal , we need not reach his arguments on appeal challenging the agency’s alternative merits determination. See INS v. Bagamasbad , 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a general rule courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.”). USCA4 Appeal: 22-2216 Doc: 32 Filed: 01/05/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5935 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5935

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 17, 2018

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 1355 North Meridian Road in Harristown, Illinois, as the ``Logan S. 
                         Palmer Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. LOGAN S. PALMER POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 1355 North Meridian Road in Harristown, Illinois, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Logan S. Palmer Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Logan S. 
Palmer Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 13, 2018.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
ex1012.htm


Exhibit 10.12


 



GUARANTY FEE AGREEMENT


 


THIS GUARANTY FEE AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) is made as of December 4, 2015 (the “Effective Date”), by and between Jonathan P. Carroll (“Guarantor”) and Lazarus Refining & Marketing, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“LRM”).  Guarantor and LRM are sometimes referred to herein as the "Parties".







WHEREAS, LRM entered into a Loan Agreement (as amended, restated, supplemented or otherwise modified from time to time, the “Loan Agreement”) dated December 4, 2015, with Sovereign Bank (“Lender”) as evidenced by that certain Promissory Note (the “Note”) of even date with the Loan Agreement, in the original principal sum of TEN MILLION AND 00/100 DOLLARS ($10,000,000.00); and







WHEREAS, as a condition precedent to Lender’s obligations to extend credit to LRM under the Loan Agreement, Lender required the execution and delivery of an unconditional guaranty as security for the obligations of LRM under the Loan Agreement and Note; and








WHEREAS, Guarantor entered into a United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development Unconditional Guarantee, Business and Industry Guaranteed Loan Program (as amended, restated, supplemented or otherwise modified from time to time, the “Guaranty”) of even date with the Loan Agreement and Note in favor of Lender to secure LRM’s obligations under the Loan Agreement and Note.




 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the Guaranty and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged by LRM, the Parties agree as follows:


 


1.             Payment of Fee.  LRM shall pay Guarantor or assignee a fee in an amount equal to two percent (2.00%) per annum, paid monthly, of the outstanding principal balance owed under the Loan Agreement (the “Guaranty Fee”).  Amounts payable to Guarantor as the Guaranty Fee shall be paid at the end of each calendar month.


 


2.             Governing Law.  This Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas without reference to any conflict of law provision.


 


3.             Counterparts.  This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, including counterparts transmitted by facsimile, each of which will be deemed an original, but both of which together will constitute one and the same instrument.

















[Remainder of page intentionally left blank; signature page to follow.]


 


 


 


 


 


 


 




  





  











  






 







 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the Effective Date.












                                                                                                










	 	LAZARUS REFINING & MARKETING, LLC 	 	JONATHAN P. CARROLL 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	
By:

	
/s/ TOMMY L. BYRD

	  	
By:

	
/s/ JONATHAN P. CARROLL


	  	
Tommy L. Byrd


 

	  	  	
Jonathan P. Carroll
----

|  | (1) | To                my knowledge, 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. |
|--|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                |
|-----------------------------------------------------|
|                   /s/ John D. Thomas |
|                   John D. Thomas          |
|                   Chief Executive Officer |

----
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Bruce Wayne Suza v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 17

- 00 116

- CR

Trial court case number: 77839

- CR

Trial court: 412th Dis t rict C o urt of Brazoria Co u n t y

Appellant’s first amended brie f

, f iled on February 7, 2018 in t he ab o v e

- re f erenced

appea l

, con t ai n ed “sensitive data” as de f ined b y Te x as R ule of Appella t e P r ocedure

9 .10(a)(3 )

. The disclosure of this information is prohibited by article 57.02(h) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 57.02(h); see also TEX. CODE CRIM.

PROC. art. 57.01(4).

Because appellant’s counsel already filed a second amended brief, the Court ST RI KES

the appel l ant’s first amended brie f

, f iled on February 7

, 201 8

, which has been re m oved f rom

this Court’s external websit e

.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Jennifer Caughey

_______________________________________

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: February 8 , 2018
Order filed, January 10, 2018.

 In The

Court of Appeals 

For The

First District of Texas 

____________

NO. 01-17-00871-CR

BILLY R. STRAHAN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 184th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case 1484245

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due 12/29/2017. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. 

On 12/28/2017, the reporter Phyllis Thibodeaux, filed volume 3 or 4. The complete 

record has not been filed with the court. Because the complete reporter’s record has not 

been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Phyllis Thibodeaux, the official (or substitute) court reporter, to file the 

complete record in this appeal, within 30 days of the date of this order. 
No further extension will be entertained absent exceptional circumstances. The 

trial and appellate courts are jointly responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is 

timely filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(c). If the reporter does not timely file the record 

as ordered, we will issue an order directing the trial court to conduct a hearing to 

determine the reason for the failure to file the record.

PER CURIAM
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-60105

Summary Calendar

WILLIE J. GRIFFIN, JR.,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

ARCHIE LONGLEY, Warden, Yazoo City,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 5:12-CV-78

Before WIENER, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Willie J. Griffin, Jr., federal prisoner # 04667-017, appeals from the order

of the district court denying his petition for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 2241. Griffin argues that he was actually innocent of any offense 

because his indictment failed to specify a quantity of cocaine base, an omission 

that could not be cured by reference to 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C), as that 

subsection requires no specific minimum quantity as do the subsections 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 3, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-60105 Document: 00512458702 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/03/2013
No. 13-60105

governing larger amounts. He also contends that § 841(b)(1)(C) was 

inapplicable because it makes reference to cocaine hydrochloride as a Schedule 

II substance and makes no reference to cocaine base.

A federal prisoner may attack the validity of his conviction in a § 2241 

petition if he can meet the requirements of the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255. Kinder v. Purdy, 222 F.3d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 2000). The prisoner bears 

the burden of showing that the remedy under § 2255 would be “inadequate or 

ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e); ReyesRequena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 901 (5th Cir. 2001). A petitioner’s 

inability to meet the procedural requirements of § 2255 is insufficient to meet 

this burden. Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 452-53 (5th Cir. 2000). Rather, a 

prisoner who wishes to proceed under the savings clause must establish that 

his claim “is based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision which 

establishes that the petitioner may have been convicted of a nonexistent 

offense” and that the claim “was foreclosed by circuit law at the time when the 

claim should have been raised.” Reyes-Requena, 243 F.3d at 904.

Griffin cites to Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), McQuiggin 

v. Perkins, 133 S. Ct. 1924 (2013), and Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 

(2013), in support of his arguments. Those opinions do not support a holding 

that Griffin’s claim is based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court 

opinion indicating that he was convicted of a nonexistent offense and that his 

claim was foreclosed when it otherwise should have been raised. See ReyesRequena, 243 F.3d at 904.

AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 13-60105 Document: 00512458702 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/03/2013
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5835 

To amend title IV–A of the Social Security Act, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 16, 2018 

Mr. BISHOP of Michigan (for himself and Ms. JENKINS of Kansas) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend title IV–A of the Social Security Act, and for 

other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Improving Access to 

5 Child Care Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. IMPROVING ACCESS TO CHILD CARE TO SUPPORT 

7 WORK. 

8 Section 418(a)(3) of the Social Security Act (42 

9 U.S.C. 618(a)(3)) is amended by striking 

10 ‘‘$2,917,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2017 and 2018’’ 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5835 IH

1 and inserting ‘‘$3,525,000,000 for each of fiscal years 

2 2019 through 2023’’. 

3 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

4 The amendment made by this Act shall take effect 

5 on October 1, 2018. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
# Официален вестник L 124/2016

| | ISSN 1977-0618 |
| --- | --- |
| Официален вестник
  на Европейския съюз | L 124 |
| | |
| Издание на български език | Законодателство | Година 5913 май 2016 г. |

ISSN 1977-0618

Официален вестник

на Европейския съюз

L 124

Издание на български език

Законодателство

Година 5913 май 2016 г.

---

| Съдържание | | II   Незаконодателни актове | Страница |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | МЕЖДУИНСТИТУЦИОНАЛНИ СПОРАЗУМЕНИЯ |
| | * | Изявление на Европейския парламент и на Комисията по повод приемането на междуинституционалното споразумение за по-добро законотворчество от 13 април 2016 г. | 1 |

Съдържание

II   Незаконодателни актове

Страница

МЕЖДУИНСТИТУЦИОНАЛНИ СПОРАЗУМЕНИЯ

*

Изявление на Европейския парламент и на Комисията по повод приемането на междуинституционалното споразумение за по-добро законотворчество от 13 април 2016 г.

1

| BG | Актовете, чиито заглавия се отпечатват с нормален шрифт, са актове по текущо управление на селскостопанската политика и имат кратък срок на действие.
  Заглавията на всички останали актове се отпечатват с удебелен шрифт и се предшестват от звезда. |
| --- | --- |

BG

Актовете, чиито заглавия се отпечатват с нормален шрифт, са актове по текущо управление на селскостопанската политика и имат кратък срок на действие.

Заглавията на всички останали актове се отпечатват с удебелен шрифт и се предшестват от звезда.

---

II Незаконодателни актове

МЕЖДУИНСТИТУЦИОНАЛНИ СПОРАЗУМЕНИЯ

| 13.5.2016 | BG | Официален вестник на Европейския съюз | L 124/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.5.2016

BG

Официален вестник на Европейския съюз

L 124/1

---

ИЗЯВЛЕНИЕ НА ЕВРОПЕЙСКИЯ ПАРЛАМЕНТ И НА КОМИСИЯТА ПО ПОВОД ПРИЕМАНЕТО НА МЕЖДУИНСТИТУЦИОНАЛНОТО СПОРАЗУМЕНИЕ ЗА ПО-ДОБРО ЗАКОНОТВОРЧЕСТВО ОТ 13 АПРИЛ 2016 Г.

Европейският парламент и Комисията считат, че споразумението (1) отразява равновесието между Европейския парламент, Съвета и Комисията и между съответните им компетентности, както са посочени в Договорите.

1

То не засяга Рамковото споразумение от 20 октомври 2010 г. за отношенията между Европейския парламент и Европейската комисия (2).

2

---

(1)  
  ОВ L 123, 12.5.2016 г., стр. 1.

1

(2)  
  ОВ L 304, 20.11.2010 г., стр. 47.

2

---
11/30/2015

NOTICE OF APPEALS

ASSIGNMENT OF COURT OF APPEALS

TO: FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

FROM: DEPUTY CLERK: DUANE C. GILMORE

CHRIS DANIEL, DISTRICT CLERK

HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

CASE NO: 2012-12595 COURT: 11TH TENTATIVE DUE DATE: 1/1/2016

APPEAL TYPE REGULAR (NEW TRIAL FILED) CASE STATUS: DISPOSED (FINAL)

APPELLANT: MACARINA GARCIA AND JUAN FIGUEROA

APPELLEE: ELI GAVRIEL SASSON

EVENT FILE DATE 11/25/2015 NUMBER OF DAYS: 120

EVENT CODES; BC, C, OA

FILED BY: KRISTOPHER K AHN TBN: 785312

DATE ORDER SIGNED 9/3/2015

COURT ASSIGNED TO: FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

IMAGE NO: 66900341 VOLUME: PAGE:

MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL FILING DATE: : October 2, 2015

NOTES:

CHRIS DANIEL 

Harris County, District Clerk

By: /s/DUANE C. GILMORE 

 DUANE C. GILMORE, Deputy

BC NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED

BG NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED – GOVERNMENT

C JUDGMENT BEING APPEALED

D - ACCELERATED APPEAL 

OA NO CLERK’S RECORD REQUEST FILED W/NOTICE OF APPEAL

O CLERK’S RECORD REQUEST FILED (W/NOTICE OF APPEAL)

NA AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 11/30/2015 10:54:46 AM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk





JUFC7 (NSK#) JUSTICE INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM NOV 30, 2015(C1) 

INT6510 CIVIL CASE INTAKE OPT: _____ - INT 

 GENERAL PARTY INQUIRY PAGE: 1 - 1 

 

CASE NUM: 201212595__ PJN> __ TRANS NUM: _________ CURRENT COURT: 11 PUB? _ 

CASE TYPE: DEBT/CONTRACT - FRAUD/MISREPRE CASE STATUS: DISPOSED (FINAL) 

STYLE: GARCIA, MACRINA VS SASSON, ELI GAVRIEL (DBA WEST HOU 

============================================================================= 

 **** INACTIVE PARTIES **** 

 PJN PER/CONN COC BAR PERSON NAME PTY ASSOC. ATTY 

 NUM NUMBER STAT 

_ 00003-0002 XDF 24088626 FIGUEROA, JUAN WHITAKER, NIC 

_ 00002-0002 XPL 00792375 SASSON, ELI GAVRIEL (DBA WEST BROWN, LORI L 

_ 00001-0002 XDF 24088626 GARCIA, MACRINA WHITAKER, NIC 

_ 00005-0001 DEF 24041555 SASSON, ELI GAVRIEL MUSSLEWHITE, 

_ 00004-0001 DEF WEST HOUSTON MOBILE HOME COMMU 

_ 00003-0001 PLT 00785312 FIGUEROA, JUAN AHN, KRISTOPH 

_ 00002-0001 DEF SASSON, ELI GAVRIEL (DBA WEST 

_ 00001-0001 PLT 00785312 GARCIA, MACRINA AHN, KRISTOPH 

 

==> (8) CONNECTION(S) FOUND 

1=ACTIVE 2=ATY. INQ. 3=ACT.ENTRY 4=ISS. SERV. 5=DOC. INQ. 

6=CASE INQ. 7=BACKWARD 8=FORWARD 9=PTY. ADDR. 10=REFRESH 11=HELP
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT ESEQUIEL GAR C IA OR TA, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 13-70830 Age n c y No. A091-696-407 M EM O R ANDUM *

ESEQUIEL GAR C IA OR TA, AKA Ese quie l Ga

rc ia , AKA Esiquie l Ga

rc ia De otra , AKA Ese quie l Orta , AKA Ese quie l Ga

rc ia Orta , Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 13-73672 Age n c y No. A091-696-407

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls 

# FIL ED FEB 18 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.Subm itte d Fe brua ry 12, 2016 * * Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : KLEINFELD, M c KEOW N, a nd IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s . In this c onsolida

t e d c a se , Ese quie l Ga

rc i a Orta pe titions from the B o ard of Im m i gration Appe a l s ’ de nia l of his two motions to re ope n the proc e e dings. Although Ga

rc ia Orta file d a tim e ly m otion to re ope n, he did not a tta c h his supporting docum e nts. As theB IA note d, the im m i gration judgehe ld the re c ord ope n until the

de a dline for m o tions to re ope n , in c a s e Ga rc ia Orta subm itte d his supporting docum e nts within the tim e pe riod, but Ga

rc i a Orta did not do so. Garc ia Orta ’ s a rgum e nt tha

t the im m igration judge ’ s fa ilure to a llow him to supple m e nt the re c ord a fte r the tim e pe riod e xpire d fa i ls be c a use whate ve r argua b le c la im Ga rc ia Orta m ight ha ve ha d for re o pe ning, theim m igration judge ’ s fa ilure to e xte nd the de a dline did not rise to the le ve l of a

due proc e s s viola

tion. In Ye ghia rz ary a n v. Gonz a le s, 439 F.3d 994, 999 (9th C ir. 2004), unlike this c a se , the a lie n wa s de p rive d

of the full 90 da

y s in whic h to submit his ne w e vide nc e . Orta re c e ive d “ a

fa i r opportunity

to pre se nt his c a se . ” Id. at 1000. The re fore we ne e d

** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2). 2not de c ide whe the r the a ge nc y ’ s a l te rnative ground for de ny i ng Ga rc ia Orta ’ s m otion, de fe c tive se rvic e , wa s supporte d . Ga rc ia Orta the n file d

a se c ond m otion to re ope n, a fte r the de a dline ha d pa sse d, but thee vide nc e he subm itte d with it, a rtic le s c onc e rning thetre atm e nt of the b lind in M e xic o a

nd de c la rations re ga

rding his own c ondition, wa s duplic ative of and pre date d his first c la im , so he did not de m onstra te it wa s una

v a ila ble at the tim e of his he aring. Na

jm a b a di v. Holde r, 597 F.3d 983, 991 (9th C ir. 2010). The B IA a c c ordingly

did not a b use its disc re t ion in de ny ing Orta ’ s m otions to re ope n. Se e La ine z -Ortizv. INS, 96 F.3d 393, 396 (9th C ir. 1996).
PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

3