alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22

- 1725

SARAHI ALEJANDRA CALDERON

- CARDOZA; C.J.M.C. , Petitioners ,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General , Respondent

.

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

.

Submitted : March 14, 2023 Decided: August 17, 2023

Before NIEMEYER and KING , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

ON BRIEF: Rebekah G. Grafton , FAY GRAFTON NUNEZ, PLLC , Raleigh, North Carolina, for Petitioners. Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General , Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant Director, Tracie N. Jones, Office of Immigration Lit igation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE , Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1725 Doc: 23 Filed: 08/17/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Sarahi Alejandra Calderon

- Cardoza and her minor child, natives and citizens of

H onduras, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing Calderon

- Cardoza ’s appeal from the Immigration Judge’s de nial of h er applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Agains t Torture (CAT). We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the administrative factual findings,

see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B), and that substantial evidence supports the denial of reli ef,
see INS v. Elias

- Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. In re Calderon

- Cardoza (B.I.A. J une 2 1 , 2022). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contenti ons are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED USCA4 Appeal: 22-1725 Doc: 23 Filed: 08/17/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1
  CERTIFICATIONS
    PURSUANT TO
    18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
    SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
    
    the
    Form 10-K
    of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2008, as
    filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
    hereof (the
    Form 10-K),
    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
    the information contained in the
    Form 10-K
    fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
    condition and results of operations of the Company.   Michael
    K. Robinson
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 106 (Friday, May 31, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 27385]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13622]



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

UTAH RECLAMATION MITIGATION AND CONSERVATION COMMISSION


Final Environmental Assessment (EA) for Establishment of the Utah 
Lake Wetland Preserve and Finding of No Significant Impact; Notice of 
Availability

AGENCY: Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Final Environmental Assessment (EA) for Establishment of 
the Utah Lake Wetland Preserve (Preserve) and Finding of No Significant 
Impact (FONSI) are available. The EA was developed to determine the 
effects of acquiring private property interests, from willing sellers 
in the Goshen Bay and Benjamin Slough areas of Utah Lake, to establish 
the Preserve. The EA compared two alternatives, the preferred and a 
``no action'' alternative. The Draft EA was developed with public input 
and the Final EA refined based upon public comment.
    The most strongly voiced concern during public scoping involved 
potential drainage impacts to neighboring lands. EA analysis determined 
that the preferred action would not deliver any additional water to the 
Goshen Bay or Benjamin Slough areas, and that no substantial wetland 
developments were proposed which might impact hydrologic conditions 
over a broad area. Maintenance of existing cooperative drainage systems 
serving up-gradient lands would be allowed on acquired lands, subject 
to reasonable conditions and standard regulatory permitting. As a 
precaution, a site-specific hydrologic assessment will be conducted 
prior to certain restorative actions to guard against potential impacts 
from raised water tables on neighboring properties. This mitigation 
measure is highlighted in the FONSI.

DATES: The EA will be available on the publication of this notice.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons or organizations may request copies of 
the document by writing to Utah Lake Draft EA, Utah Reclamation 
Mitigation and Conservation Commission, 111 E. Broadway, Suite 310, 
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine Quinn, Telephone (801) 524-
3146; Fax (801) 524-3148.

    Authority: Pub. L. 102-575, 106 Stat. 4600, 4625, October 30, 
1992.
Michael C. Weland,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 96-13622 Filed 5-30-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-P
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 116 (Friday, June 14, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 30223]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15165]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[I.D. 061096B]


Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council's Bottomfish 
Task Force will convene a public meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be held on June 17, 1996, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Executive Center, 1088 
Bishop St., Room 4003, Honolulu, Hawaii; telephone: (808) 539-3000. 
Council address: Western Pacific Fishery Management Council, 1164 
Bishop St., Suite 1405, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director; 
telephone 808-522-8220.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Bottomfish Task Force will discuss and 
make recommendations to the Bottomfish Plan Team on limited entry 
alternatives to the Mau Zone bottomfish fishery in the Northwestern 
Hawaiian Islands and consider other business as required.

Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. 
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids 
should be directed to Kitty M. Simonds, 808-522-8220 (voice) or 808-
522-8226 (fax).

    Dated: June 10, 1996.
Richard H. Schaefer,
Director, Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management, National 
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 96-15165 Filed 6-11-96; 12:38 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
EXHIBIT 10.83


EXTENSION AGREEMENT
 
 This Extension Agreement (this “Agreement”), dated as of February 5, 2011, is entered into by and among Location Based Technologies, Inc., (“Borrower”) and Robert Wheat, (“Holder”).
 
 RECITALS:
 
 WHEREAS, the Holder has loaned $25,000 to the Borrower as of the effective date of this Extension Agreement, evidenced by a Promissory Note Agreement dated November 5, 2010 with an original maturity date of February 5, 2011 (“Note”) and by this Extension Agreement dated February 5, 2011 hereby extending the maturity date to August 5, 2011; and
 
 WHEREAS, the Borrower and Holder agree to further extend the maturity date of the Note in accordance with the terms hereof.
 
 AGREEMENT:
 
 NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and the mutual covenants set forth in this Agreement, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:
 
 1.Extension of Maturity Date.The Maturity Date under the Note is hereby extended for an additional six months until August 5, 2011 or will be paid upon funding from the technology bank financing.  The earlier of the two events will result in immediate payment.
  2.Payment.  Holder shall receive the principal and accrued interest, with the funds going first to the accrued interest and the balance to the principal until paid in full.
 
 3.Shares.  Robert Wheat shall receive 100,000 shares of the Company’s restricted Common Stock.
 
 4.Full Force and Effect.  Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, the Note dated November 5, 2010, shall remain in full force and effect.  Except for any waivers and modifications contained herein, this Agreement shall not in any way waive or prejudice any of the rights or obligations of the Holder or the Borrower under the Note, under any law, in equity or otherwise, and such waivers and modifications shall not constitute a waiver or modification of any other provision of the Note nor a waiver or modification of any subsequent default or breach of any obligation of the Borrower or of any subsequent right of the Holder.
 
 1
  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed and delivered this Agreement as of February 5, 2011.
 
 
 The “Borrower”
 
 
 Location Based Technologies, Inc.
 
 
 
 The “Holder”
 Robert Wheat
Order entered August 6, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 13
- 00687
- CR JAMES ERIC HOOTEN, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Cour t Cause No. 366
- 80086
- 08



### O RDER
The Court GRANTS court reporter Niki D. Garcia’s August 2, 2013 motion for extension of time to file the reporter’s record.
We ORDER Ms. Garcia to file the reporter’s record within THIRTY DAYS from the
date of this order

.

/ s/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 41158 Summary Calendar

HECTOR R. GARZA

- MATA, Pro Se & Siblings similarly situated,

Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; THOMAS E. PEREZ, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, in his official capacity as head of the Department of Justice; DAVID L. NEAL, Chairman o f the Board of Immigration Appeals; JOHN KERRY, Secretary, U.S. Department of State; JEH CHARLES JOHNSON, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; RON ROSENBERG, Chief of the Admin istrative Appeals Office

- U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; ALBERT W. BLAKEWAY, Field Office Director

- U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

- San Antonio, Texas,

Defendants

- Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:14

- CV

- 48

Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges

. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED
March 20, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-41158 Document: 00512976163 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/20/2015No. 14

- 41158

PER CURIAM: *

The lengthy complaint filed by the Plaintiff lists what is thought to have

been official mistakes affecting his grandmother and other family members in

past years. But no claim that warrants legal relief now by a federal court is

set forth . As for the claim of citizenship, the dis trict court has correctly

explained why that must fail. The court also explained why the other civil and

constitutional rights discussed by the Plaintiff state no legal complaint against

any defendant. The case must be dismissed.

AFFIRMED.

* 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.

2 Case: 14-41158 Document: 00512976163 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/20/2015
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Pedro Torres Gutierrez

, * From the 106th District Court

of Dawson County,

Trial Court No. 17

- 7752

.

Vs. No. 11

- 1 8

- 00 298

- CR * November 1 9 , 20 20

The State of Texas

, * Opinion by Bailey , C.J.

(P anel consists of: Bailey , C.J.,

Stretcher , J. , and Wright, S.C.J.,

sitting by assignment )

( Willson , J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no

error in the judgment s below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opi nion,

the judgment s of the trial court are in all things affirmed.
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Gary Jerome Harper, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-18-0298-PHX-DGC (DMF) 

ORDER 

 On August 6, 2018, the Court issued its scheduling order in this matter which stated 

that “All motion to amend the complaint or to add parties shall be filed by October 2, 2018.” 

(Doc. 29) On September 28, 2018, the Court struck Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint 

and denied his Motion to Add Parties to Original Complaint. (Doc. 39) The Court’s Order 

included the full text of LRCiv. 15.1 and informed Plaintiff that if he “seeks any extension 

of time to add additional parties or amend the Complaint, Plaintiff must lodge with the 

Court at the time of the motion for extension, the proposed motion to amend and the 

accompanying proposed documents that comply with the Local Rules of Civil Procedure 

and the previous Court orders.” (Doc. 39 at 3-4) 

 On October 26, 2018, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Amend Original Complaint (+) 

Add Additional Parties! [sic]” (Doc. 43) Plaintiff did not file a motion for extension of 

time and his filed Motion does not comply with LRCiv. 15.1 which states, in relevant part: 
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

A party who moves for leave to amend a pleading must attach a copy of the proposed amended pleading as an exhibit to the motion, which must indicate 

in what respect it differs from the pleading which it amends, by bracketing or striking through the text to be deleted and underlining the text to be added. 

In short, Plaintiff’s motion is untimely without explanation and he has not complied with 

the relevant Local Rules (see Doc. 39). Accordingly, the Court will not grant his motion. 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (Doc. 43). 

 Dated this 18th day of December, 2018.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Gregory J. Kuykendall, Bar # 012508

Amy P. Knight, Bar # 031374

KUYKENDALL & ASSOCIATES

531 S Convent Avenue

Tucson, AZ 85701

(520) 792-8033

greg@kuykendall-law.com

amyknight@kuykendall-law.com

Attorneys for Defendant Scott Daniel Warren

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SCOTT DANIEL WARREN,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No.CR-18-00223-001-TUC-RCC(BPV)

MOTION TO MODIFY 

CONDITIONS OF RELEASE

Excludable delay pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 3161(h)(1)(F) will not occur 

as a result of this motion or of an order based thereon.

Defendant, Scott Daniel Warren, Ph.D., by and through his attorneys 

undersigned, Gregory J. Kuykendall, and Amy P. Knight, hereby requests that the 

Court modify the conditions of release previously imposed to allow him to travel to 

Colorado April 20-23, 2018. Dr. Warren plans to attend a wilderness first responder 

recertification class.
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Defense counsel has spoken with Assistant United States Attorney Anna 

Wright, and she has no objection to this request. Dr. Warren has received permission 

for this trip from and United States PTS Officer Rubyann Shelby. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 18th day of April, 2018.

By /s/ Amy P. Knight

Gregory J. Kuykendall

Amy P. Knight

531 S Convent Avenue

Tucson, AZ 85701

Attorneys for Defendant Scott 

Daniel Warren

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on April 18, 2018, I electronically transmitted a PDF version of 

this document to the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF System for filing and for 

transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants: 

Nathaniel J. Walters, Esq. (email: Nathaniel.walters@usdoj.gov) 

Anna R. Wright, Esq. (email: anna.wright@usdoj.gov) 

United States Attorney’s Office 

405 W. Congress, Suite 4800 

Tucson, AZ 85701
Case 2:18-cv-00747-DJH Document 8 Filed 03/14/18 Page 1 of 1
# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted August 18, 2009

Decided Nocember 4, 2009

Before

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge

No. 08

‐ 3607

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

‐ Appellee

,

v.

MICHAEL TERRELL WILLIAMS,

Defendant

‐ Appellant. Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Indiana,

South Bend Division.

No. 3:07

‐ cr

‐ 00133

‐ RLM

‐ CAN

‐ 1

Robert L. Miller, Jr.,

Chief Judge

.

O R D E R

Michael Williams pleaded guilty to possessing marijuana with intent to distribute,

see 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and using a firearm in furtherance of the drug offense, see 18 U.S.C.

§ 924(c). As part of his plea agreement Williams waived his right to appeal, and the district

court sentenced him to 192 months’ imprisonment. Williams appealed anyway, but his

appointed counsel have moved to withdraw because they cannot discern a nonfrivolous NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1No. 08

‐ 3607 Page 2

basis for appeal. See Anders v. California

, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Williams has not responded to

our invitation to comment on counsel’s motion. See C IR

. R. 51(b). Our review is confined to

the potential issues identified in counsel’s facially adequate supporting brief. See United

States v. Schuh

, 289 F.3d 968, 973

‐ 74 (7th Cir. 2002).

Williams does not want his guilty plea set aside, so counsel correctly refrained from

examining the adequacy of the plea colloquy or voluntariness of the plea. See United States

v. Knox

, 287 F.3d 667, 670

‐ 72 (7th Cir. 2002). The plea agreement and appeal waiver are thus

enforceable, see Nunez v. United States

, 546 F.3d 450, 454

‐ 55 (7th Cir. 2008); United States v.

Wilson

, 481 F.3d 475, 483 (7th Cir. 2007), rendering this appeal frivolous.

Accordingly, we GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and DISMISS the appeal.
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 Annual Report of Spare Backup, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Cery B. Perle, CEO 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 result of operations of the
Company.

                                        /s/ Cery B. Perle
                                        -----------------
                                        Cery B. Perle, CEO and principal
                                        executive officer, principal financial
                                        and accounting officer

April 2, 2007

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
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.
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Angel Castillo-Prieto, 

Defendant. 

NO. CR-18-00257-001-PHX-JAT

ORDER OF DETENTION PENDING 

DISPOSITION (PURSUANT TO 

18 U.S.C. § 3143) 

In accordance with the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3143, a detention hearing was 

submitted on 9/6/2018. Defendant was present and was represented by counsel. The 

defendant has not rebutted by clear and convincing evidence that he is not likely to flee if 

released. 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

I find by a preponderance of the evidence that: 

☒ The defendant is not a citizen of the United States or lawfully admitted for 

permanent residence. 

☒ The defendant, at the time of the charged offense, was in the United States 

illegally. 

☒ The defendant has a prior criminal history. 

☒ The defendant has been ordered detained on the underlying 8 USC 1326(a)&(b)(1) 

charged in Case No: 18-1779MJ. 

The Court incorporates by reference the material findings of the Pretrial Services Agency 

which were reviewed by the Court at the time of the hearing in this matter, except as 

noted in the record. 
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

1. There is a serious risk that the defendant will flee. 

2. No condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance 

of the defendant as required. 

DIRECTIONS REGARDING DETENTION 

The defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney General or his/her designated 

representative for confinement in a corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, 

from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal. The 

defendant shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity for private consultation with defense 

counsel. On order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the 

Government, the person in charge of the corrections facility shall deliver the defendant to 

the United States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court 

proceeding. 

APPEALS AND THIRD PARTY RELEASE 

 IT IS ORDERED that should an appeal of this detention order be filed with the 

District Court, it is counsel's responsibility to deliver a copy of the motion for 

review/reconsideration to Pretrial Services at least one day prior to the hearing set before 

the District Court. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if a release to a third party is to be considered, it 

is counsel's responsibility to notify Pretrial Services sufficiently in advance of the hearing 

before the District Court to allow Pretrial Services an opportunity to interview and 

investigate the potential third party custodian. 

DATE: 9/6/2018