alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CARLOS A. LANDEROS,

 Petitioner,

 v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General,

 Respondent.

No. 19-72855

Agency No.

A034-266-469

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of an

Immigration Judge

Submitted March 26, 2024**

Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and KOH, Circuit Judges. 

Carlos A. Landeros, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for 

review of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order affirming an asylum officer’s 

negative reasonable fear determination. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence an IJ’s negative reasonable fear 

* 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 29 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-72855

determination, and we review de novo due process challenges to reasonable fear 

proceedings. Orozco-Lopez v. Garland, 11 F.4th 764, 774 (9th Cir. 2021). We 

deny the petition for review. 

Because Landeros does not challenge the IJ’s determinations that he failed to 

show a reasonable possibility of persecution on account of a protected ground or a 

reasonable possibility of torture if returned to Mexico, we do not address 

them. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013). 

We decline to reach Landero’s claim of harm that was raised for the first 

time in his reply brief. See Bazuaye v. INS, 79 F.3d 118, 120 (9th Cir. 1996) (court 

need not reach issues raised for the first time in the reply brief).

Landeros’ contentions that the asylum officer violated due process by 

denying him access to an attorney, interviewing him under duress, and 

demonstrating prejudice against him, are not supported by the record. 

We reject Landeros’ contention that the Convention Against Torture 

(“CAT”) provides the right to apply for asylum for individuals in reinstated 

removal proceedings. See Maldonado v. Lynch, 786 F.3d 1155, 1162 & n.7 (9th 

Cir. 2015) (the two available forms of CAT protection are withholding of removal 

and deferral of removal); Perez-Guzman v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1066, 1081 (9th Cir. 

2016) (“Although the availability of asylum is an important component of our 

immigration law, it is not unreasonable to conclude Congress intended to bar this 
3 19-72855

form of relief to persons in reinstated removal proceedings while preserving relief 

for individuals able to meet the higher standards for withholding of removal and 

CAT relief.”).

To the extent Landeros raises a Sixth Amendment right to counsel claim, it 

is foreclosed by Usubakunov v. Garland, 16 F.4th 1299, 1303 (9th Cir. 2021) 

(“[N]oncitizens have the right to counsel in removal proceedings, albeit not the 

right to counsel paid for by the government.”).

Landero’s motions to take notice (Docket Entry Nos. 34, 38, and 40) are

denied. 

The stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1901

JOSEPH WOJCICKI,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

AIKEN TECHNICAL COLLEGE; SUSAN A. WINSOR, ex Graham ATC 

president; WILLIAM TILT, Associate Vice President of 

Technical Education; THOMAS DESROCHER, Program Coordinator; 

LEE POWELL, Human Resources Director,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Aiken. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. 

(1:06-cv-00461-HFF-PJG)

Submitted: March 2, 2011 Decided: March 21, 2011

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and AGEE and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph Wojcicki, Appellant Pro Se. Charles J. Boykin, Shunna T. 

Vance, BOYKIN & DAVIS, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Joseph Wojcicki seeks to appeal the district court’s 

orders adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny 

his motions for default judgment or, in the alternative, for 

summary judgment, and denying reconsideration of that order. 

This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final 

orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and 

collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 

(1949). The orders Wojcicki seeks to appeal are neither final 

orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Benjamin Steinman and Harry H. Meyers, Respondents, v. Eva K. Conlon, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. No opinion.
EXHIBIT 23.1





INDEPENDENT AUDITORS CONSENT





We consent to the incorporation by reference in
Registration Statement Nos. 333-38635, 333-68229, 333-93663, 333-42192, 333-39026 and 333-67716 of Hall Kinion & Associates, Inc. and subsidiaries on Form S-8 of our reports dated February 1, 2002 appearing in this Annual Report on Form
10-K of Hall, Kinion & Associates, Inc. and subsidiaries for the year ended December 30, 2001.





Deloitte
& Touche, LLP


San Jose, California


March
25, 2002
EXHIBIT 11.1


                                          Year ended        Nine months ended
                                      December 31, 1995     December 31, 1996
                                      -----------------     -----------------

Primary Earnings Per Share
--------------------------
Net loss                                 $ (648,302)          $(1,223,127)
                                         ==========           ===========
Weighted average number of
  common shares outstanding
  during year                            $2,201,662             2,249,683

Add common equivalent shares
  (as determined by the
  application of the treasury
  stock method) representing
  shares issuable upon assumed
  exercise of stock warrants                     --                    --
                                         ----------           -----------
Weighted average number of
  common shares used in
  calculation of primary
  earnings per share                      2,201,662             2,249,683
                                         ==========           ===========
Earnings per common share
  assuming no dilution                         (.30)                 (.54)
                                         ==========           ===========
Fully Diluted Earnings Per Share
----------------------------
Net loss                                   (648,302)          $(1,223,127)
                                         ==========           ===========
Weighted average number of common
  shares outstanding during year          2,201,662             2,249,683

Add common equivalent shares (as
  determined by the application
  of the treasury stock method)
  representing shares issuable
  upon assumed exercise of stock
  warrants                                       --                    --
                                         ----------           -----------
Weighted average number of
  common shares used in
  calculation of fully diluted
  earnings per share                      2,201,662             2,249,683
                                         ==========           ===========
Earnings per common share
  assuming full dilution                       (.30)                 (.54)
                                         ==========           ===========
Order filed June 4, 2014

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 14

- 00186

- CV

____________ SIGNORA LYNCH , Appellant

V.

KAREN GEORGE

- BAUNCHAND AND JOHN C . OSBORNE, Appellee s

On Appeal from the 215th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2012

- 64880



### O R D E R
Appellant’ s brief was due May 22, 2014

. No brief or motion for extension of
time has been filed.
Unless appellant files a brief with this court on or before July 7, 2014 , the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

PER CURIAM
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent ofIndependent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in the following RegistrationStatements:
| Form Number                            | ** ** | ** ** | ** ** | **Registration Statement Number**                                                                                      | ** ** | **Description** | ** ** | ** ** |
|---------------------------------------------|------------|------------|------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|-----------------|------------|------------|
| Form S-3/A (Amendment No. 5) |       | 333-122684 |       | Common Stock                                                                                                           |
| Form S-3                               |       | 333-140439 |       | 9% Convertible Senior  Secured Notes due 2012                                                                          |
| Form S-8                               |       | 333-127142 |       | First Avenue  Networks, Inc. Stock Option Plan                                                                    |
| Form S-8                               |       | 333-110295 |       | First Avenue  Networks, Inc. Stock Option Plan                                                                    |
| Form S-8                               |       | 333-137040 |       | First Avenue  Networks, Inc. Stock Option Plan and FiberTower Corporation Amended and  Restated Stock Option Plan |

 

of ourreports dated March 29, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financialstatements of FiberTower Corporation, FiberTower Corporation management’sassessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting,and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting ofFiberTower Corporation (which, as indicated in our report dated March 29,2007, was formerly known as First Avenue Networks, Inc.), included in thisAnnual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2006.

|  | /s/ Ernst &  Young LLP |
|--|---------------------------------|

 

San Francisco, CaliforniaMarch 29, 2007

----
# Leadership & Officers

**

----

    Listed below are the current leadership and officers for the 118th        Congress. Also available on Senate.gov are historical essays on and        lists of Senate leadership        and Senate officers.        

**Constitutionally Mandated Officers**

*About the Offices of the Vice President and President Pro Tempore*

****
|  |
|--|

**Political Party Leaders**

*About Leadership Positions*

**Democratic Leadership**
||
||
||
||
||

**Republican Leadership**
||
||
||

**Committee Chairmen**

**Standing Committees**
||
||
||
||
||
||
||

**Special, Select, and Other Committees**
||
||
||

**Joint Committees**
||
||
||

**Senate-Elected Officers & Officials**

*About Senate-Elected Officers and Officials*

****
||
||
||

        -  Contact 
        -  Leadership & Officers 
        -  Former Senators 
        -  Qualifications & Terms of Service 
        -  Facts & Milestones 
        -  States 

### Related Links 

Leader's Lecture Series

U.S. Senate Leadership Portrait Collection
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-2351

SUSAN WASHINGTON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. 

Thomas M. DiGirolamo, Magistrate Judge. (8:16-cv-02429-TMD)

Submitted: April 30, 2018 Decided: May 8, 2018

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Susan Washington, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Susan Washington appeals the magistrate judge’s order upholding the 

Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) denial of Washington’s application for disability 

insurance benefits.∗

 “In social security proceedings, a court of appeals applies the same 

standard of review as does the district court. That is, a reviewing court must uphold the 

determination when an ALJ has applied correct legal standards and the ALJ’s factual 

findings are supported by substantial evidence.” Brown v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 873 

F.3d 251, 267 (4th Cir. 2017) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

“Substantial evidence is that which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to 

support a conclusion. It consists of more than a mere scintilla of evidence but may be 

less than a preponderance.” Pearson v. Colvin, 810 F.3d 204, 207 (4th Cir. 2015) 

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “In reviewing for substantial evidence, 

we do not undertake to reweigh conflicting evidence, make credibility determinations, or 

substitute our judgment for that of the ALJ. Where conflicting evidence allows 

reasonable minds to differ as to whether a claimant is disabled, the responsibility for that 

decision falls on the ALJ.” Hancock v. Astrue, 667 F.3d 470, 472 (4th Cir. 2012) 

(brackets, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted).

We have reviewed the record and perceive no reversible error. The ALJ applied 

the correct legal standards in evaluating Washington’s claim for benefits, and the ALJ’s 

 ∗ The parties consented to a final disposition by the magistrate judge pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2012). 
3

factual findings are supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we grant 

Washington leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and we affirm the magistrate judge’s 

order upholding the denial of benefits. See Washington v. Colvin, No. 8:16-cv-02429-

TMD (D. Md. filed Sept. 25, 2017 & entered Sept. 26, 2017). We 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.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


         As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the use of our
report and to all reference to our Firm included in or made a part of the Forms
S-8 made by Xeta Technologies, Inc. on August 28, 1995 and August 25, 2000. It
should be noted that we have not audited any financial statements of the Company
subsequent to October 31, 2000, or performed any audit procedures subsequent to
the date of our report.




                                                            ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
Tulsa, Oklahoma
  September 14, 2001
# Tentative 2020 Legislative Schedule

**

----

The *tentative schedule* for 2020 has been announced. The list below identifies expected non-legislative periods (days that the Senate will not be in session). The schedule is also available in calendar format (PDF). The 2019 tentative schedule is still available.

XML

        -  Bills, Acts, & Laws 
        -  Nominations 
        -  Treaties 
        -  Votes 
        -  Floor Proceedings 
        -  Rules & Procedure 
        -  Landmark Legislation 
        -  Sessions of Congress 
        -  Senate Archives 
        -  Public Disclosure
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM GST USA'S
FORM 10-K/A FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                      85,884,000
<SECURITIES>                                34,107,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               38,417,000
<ALLOWANCES>                               (5,482,000)
<INVENTORY>                                  1,166,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           165,773,000
<PP&E>                                     678,374,000
<DEPRECIATION>                            (62,522,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           1,128,778,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      441,335,000
<BONDS>                                    826,300,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    78,462,000
<OTHER-SE>                               (329,835,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             1,128,778,000
<SALES>                                    163,317,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           163,317,000
<CGS>                                      108,743,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              295,013,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            82,730,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          77,814,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          (126,780,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      (126,780,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                             (126,780,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

<PAGE>
                                  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 Roaming Messenger, Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form  10-QSB  for the  period  ending  September  30,  2003  (the
"Report")  I,  Jonathan  Lei,  Chief  Executive  Officer,  President,  and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18USC ss.1350, as adopted
pursuant  to ss.906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that to the best of my
knowledge and belief:

         (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.


Dated:  November 18, 2003


\s\ Jonathan Lei
-------------------------------------
Jonathan Lei, Chief Executive Officer,
President, and Chief Financial Officer

         This  certification  accompanies  the Report pursuant to Section 906 of
the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not, except 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 Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONDENSED
BALANCE SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED APRIL 4,
1999.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-04-1999
<CASH>                                             750
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,655,604<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,982,065
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,638,419
<PP&E>                                       4,601,871<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,240,290
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,792,476
<BONDS>                                      2,306,187
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       245,962
<OTHER-SE>                                    (104,335)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,240,290
<SALES>                                      3,448,636
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                36,206
<CGS>                                        2,959,698
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,959,698
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               437,205
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             138,278
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (50,339)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (50,339)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.02)
<FN>
<F1>REPRESENTS NET AMOUNT.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 21.1**

 

**LISTING OF SUBSIDIARIES**

 
| **Company**                      |   | **State or Place of Organization** |
|----------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------|
| Zomax Canada  Acquisition, LLC   |   | Minnesota                          |
| Zomax Canada  Company*           |   | Nova Scotia                        |
| Primary  Marketing Group Limited |   | Ireland                            |
| Zomax  Limited**                 |   | Ireland                            |
| Zomax U.S.,  Inc.                |   | Delaware                           |
| Zomax  International, Inc.       |   | Delaware                           |
| Zomax  Netherlands, Inc.         |   | Delaware                           |

 

----

* Subsidiary of Zomax CanadaAcquisition, LLC

** Subsidiary of PrimaryMarketing Group Limited