alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Larry Wayne REESE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 0047-95.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.

Nov. 15, 1995.

Mark W. Stevens, Galveston, for appellant.

B. Warren Goodson, Jr., Assistant Dist. Atty., Galveston and Robert A. Huttash, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

*OPINION CONCURRING TO REFUSAL OF APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW*

OVERSTREET, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of delivery of a controlled substance. The court of appeals affirmed in *Reese v. State,*846 S.W.2d 437 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1992). However, we remanded the cause to the court of appeals for further appropriate analysis. *Reese v. State,*877 S.W.2d 328 (Tex.Cr.App.1994). On remand, the court of appeals again affirmed. *Reese v. State,*892 S.W.2d 161 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1994).

Appellant has filed a petition for discretionary review raising three grounds/points for review. After careful review this Court refuses appellant’s petition for discretionary review. I write separately believing that while the petition should indeed be refused, it should be refused with a disclaimer as we have done in previous cases. *See, e.g., Aguilar v. State,*830 S.W.2d 612 (Tex.Cr.App. 1992); *Crowley v. State,*830 S.W.2d 613 (Tex.Cr.App.1992); *McGee v. State,*825 S.W.2d 709 (Tex.Cr.App.1992); *Montgomery v. State,*827 S.W.2d 324 (Tex.Cr.App.1992); *Sheffield v. State,*678 S.W.2d 82 (Tex.Cr.App.1984); and *Sheffield v. State,*650 S.W.2d 813 (Tex.Cr.App.1983).

Nevertheless, I note that the court of appeals, conducting further analysis on remand, used language which suggests that it was somehow improperly imposed upon and inconvenienced by having this case remanded to it. *Reese v. State,*892 S.W.2d at 163. The court of appeals specifically stated that performing such analysis was “an exercise in futility[,]” “furthered no jurisprudential purpose!,]” and “unnecessarily delayed the finality of a criminal conviction.” *Id.*I believe that this Court should disavow and disclaim such language. When a court of appeals incorrectly finds an absence of error or neglects to address a party’s points and/or arguments, a majority of this Court has held that it is proper that the case be remanded to that court of appeals so that it can correct its oversight. *See, e.g., Owens v. State,*827 S.W.2d 911, 917-18 n. 7 (Tex.Cr.App.1992); *Saenz v. State,*843 S.W.2d 24 (Tex.Cr.App.1992); *Ikner v. State,*848 S.W.2d 161 (Tex.Cr.App.1993); *King v. State,*848 S.W.2d 142 (Tex.Cr.App.1993); and *Wood v. State,*828 S.W.2d 13 (Tex.Cr.App.1992). It is certainly not an imposition in requiring a court of appeals to fully and accurately address the parties’ claims. *See, e.g.,*Tex.RApp.Pro. 90(a).

With this understanding, I agree with the Court’s decision to refuse appellant’s petition for discretionary review, but I specifically disavow and disclaim the language from the court of appeals’ opinion.

BAIRD, J., joins.
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Walter Byron Sexton, * From the 29th District Court

of Palo Pinto County,

Trial Court No. 16617.

Vs. No. 11-18-00278-CR * September 12, 2019

The State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel 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 

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

we modify the judgment of the trial court to delete the “Restitution” of “$180.00” 

that was ordered to be paid to the “Texas DPS.” We affirm the judgment as 

modified.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 125 (Thursday, June 27, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33572-33573]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16417]


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


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee Meeting on Aircraft 
Certification Procedures Issues

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a 
meeting of the Federal Aviation Administration's Aviation Rulemaking 
Advisory Committee to discuss aircraft certification procedures issues.

DATES: The meeting will be held on July 25, 1996, at 9:00 a.m. Arrange 
for oral presentations by July 18, 1996.

ADDRESS: The meeting will be held at the General Aviation Manufacturers 
Association, Suite 801, 1400 K St., NW., Washington, DC 20005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeanne Trapani, Office of Rulemaking 
(ARM-208), 800 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20591, telephone 
(202) 267-7624.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal

[[Page 33573]]

Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463; 5 U.S.C. App. II), notice is 
hereby given of a meeting of the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee 
to be held on July 25, 1996, at the General Aviation Manufacturers 
Association, Suite 801, K St., NW., Washington, DC 20005. The agenda 
for the meeting will include:

<bullet> Opening Remarks
<bullet> Working Group Reports
    Delegation System
    Parts
    Production Certification
    ICPTF
<bullet> New Business

    Attendance is open to the interested public, but will be limited to 
the space available. The public must make arrangements by July 18, 
1996, to present oral statements at the meeting. The public may present 
written statements to the committee at any time by providing 25 copies 
of the Assistant Executive Director for Aircraft Certification 
Procedures or by bringing the copies to him at the meeting. 
Arrangements may be made by contacting the person listed under the 
heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Sign and oral interpretation can be made available at the meeting, 
as well as an assistive listening device, if requested 10 calendar days 
before the meeting.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 20, 1996.
Ava L. Robinson,
Assistant Executive Director, Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee on 
Aircraft Certification Procedures.
[FR Doc. 96-16417 Filed 6-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
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 this Quarterly Report of Exclusive Apparel, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Sharon M. Lynch, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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.



By:   /s/ Sharon M. Lynch

Sharon M. Lynch

Chief Executive Officer

Chief Accounting Officer



Dated: May 7, 2007
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

KATHÉ JOHNSON,

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,

v.

MAJIC WINDOW COMPANY, MEYERS

& MEYERS PLLC, and AMERICAN

GENERAL FINANCIAL SERVICES,

Defendants/Counter-Claimants,

 /

Case No. 09-10283

Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

OPINION AND ORDER

 At a session of said Court, held in the U.S.

District Courthouse, Eastern District 

of Michigan, on September 2, 2009.

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE PATRICK J. DUGGAN

U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Kathé Johnson (“Plaintiff”) filed a five count complaint against Majic Window

Company (“Majic”), Meyers and Meyers PLLC (“Meyers”), and American General

Financial Services (“AGFS”) on January 27, 2009. Majic and Meyer answered the

complaint and filed a counterclaim against Plaintiff on February 18, 2009. On March 4,

2009, Plaintiff stipulated to the dismissal of AGFS. Presently before the Court is a

Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Majic and Meyers (collectively “defendants”) on

July 15, 2009. The motion has been fully briefed and the Court heard oral argument on

September 2, 2009. For the reasons set forth on the record at the September 2 hearing,

2:09-cv-10283-PJD-MKM Doc # 26 Filed 09/02/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 259
2

IT IS ORDERED that defendants’ motion for summary judgment is DENIED. 

s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:

Adam G. Taub, Esq.

Eric C. Jones, Esq.

2:09-cv-10283-PJD-MKM Doc # 26 Filed 09/02/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 260
Compensatory Arrangement with Executive Officers



 Exhibit 10.18.1 
 Compensatory Arrangements with Executive Officers 
 Compensation for executives at TECO Energy, Inc. (the “Corporation”) consists
of several components. Included among these are base salary and an annual incentive award program. 
 Base salary information for named executive officers
for 2009 is set forth in the table below (which salaries are the same as in 2008). 
 The Corporation’s annual incentive plan, last amended in February
2009, is included as Exhibit 10.4 to the Corporation’s Annual Report on Form 10-K to which this document is an exhibit (the “Report”). The 2009 target award percentages for awards under the annual incentive plan for the named
executive officers are set forth in the table below (which target award percentages are the same as in 2008). 
 Compensatory arrangements relating to other
aspects of the Corporation’s executive compensation program are included as exhibits to the Report. Mr. Hudson also receives a monthly housing and travel allowance of $5,000, in recognition of his retaining his primary residence in Miami.

 Named Executive Officer Salary and Target Award Percentage Information for 2009 
  

									
	 Name
	  	 Title
	  	Salary	  	Target
Award %	 
	 Sherrill W. Hudson
	  	Chairman and CEO	  	$	826,189	  	80	%
	 John B. Ramil
	  	President and Chief Operating Officer	  	$	534,000	  	70	%
	 Gordon L. Gillette
	  	Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer	  	$	455,500	  	60	%
	 Charles R. Black
	  	President of Tampa Electric	  	$	368,460	  	55	%
	 William N. Cantrell
	  	President of Peoples Gas System	  	$	313,000	  	40	%
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 125 (Thursday, June 27, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 33509]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16478]


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

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Dkt. 6459]


Giant Food, Inc.; Prohibited Trade Practices and Affirmative 
Corrective Actions

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Set aside order.

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

SUMMARY: This order reopens a 1964 consent order--which prohibited 
Giant from inducing its suppliers to offer, or receiving from its 
suppliers, compensation for promotional services or facilities on terms 
that Giant knew were not proportionally equal to the terms those 
suppliers offered other retailers--and sets aside the consent order 
pursuant to the Commission's 1994 Sunset Policy Statement, under which 
the Commission presumed that the public interest requires terminating 
competition orders that are more than 20 years old.

DATES: Modified consent order issued April 13, 1964. Set aside order 
issued September 7, 1995.\1\

    \1\ Copies of the Modified Consent Order and Set Aside Order are 
available from the Commission's Public Reference Branch, H-130, 6th 
Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Daniel Ducore, FTC/S-2115, Washington, D.C. 20580. (202) 326-2526.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Matter of Giant Food, Inc. The 
prohibited trade practices and/or corrective actions are removed as 
indicated.

(Sec. 6, 38 Stat. 721; 15 U.S.C. 46. Interprets or applies sec. 5, 
38 Stat. 719, as amended; 15 U.S.C. 45)
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-16478 Filed 6-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-M
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 Quarterly Report of ENDEAVOR URANIUM, INC. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2007, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Marvin Mitchell, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 the
          operation of the Company.


November 12, 2007                 By: /s/ Marvin Mitchell
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Marvin Mitchell
                                      Interim CEO, Vice President of Exploration

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to ss.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 Registrant for the purposes of
ss.18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. This certification
shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act
of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether
made before or after the date of this Report), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.

A signed original of this written statement required by ss.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.
#### CENTURY FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, LTD., Plaintiff/Respondent, v. R & H FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC, Defendant/Appellant.

No. 69909.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

Nov. 26, 1996.

Edward P. Radetic, St. Louis, for Defendant/Appellant.

Brinker, Doyen & Kovacs, P.C., Jon R. Sanner, St. Louis, for Plaintiff/Respondent.

*644Before RHODES RUSSELL, P.J., and SIMON and KAROHL, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

This appeal involves operative facts and legal issues which are the same as those considered in *Century Financial Services, Ltd. v. Bates,*934 S.W.2d 619 (Mo.App.E.D.1996). The attorneys for both sides, lessee’s one point on appeal and lessor’s response are identical. In deciding this appeal we adopt our decision in that case.

We affirm.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 19, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31090-31091]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15523]



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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Defense Information Systems Agency


Membership of the Defense Information Systems Agency Senior 
Executive Service (SES) Performance Review Board (PRB)

AGENCY: Defense Information System Agency.


[[Page 31091]]


ACTION: Notice of membership of the Defense Information Systems Agency 
Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------'


SUMMARY: This notice announces the appointment of the members of the 
Performance Review Board of the Defense Information Systems Agency. The 
publication of membership is required by 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4).
    The Performance Review Board provides fair and impartial review of 
Senior Executive Service performance appraisals and makes 
recommendations regarding performance ratings and performance awards to 
the Director, DISA.

EFFECTIVE DATE: 7 June 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Carrie K. Bazemore, SES Program Manager, Civilian Personnel 
Division, Personnel and Administration Manpower Directorate, Defense 
Information Systems Agency (703) 607-4411.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4), the 
following are names and titles of the executives who have been 
appointed to serve as members of the SES Performance Review Board. They 
will serve a one-year renewable term, effective 7 June 1996.

Jack Penkoske,
Chief, Civilian Personnel Division.

David J. Kelley, Major General, USA, Vice Director, DISA
D. Diane Fountaine, Deputy Manager, National Communication Systems
Michael Mestrovich, (Dr.), Deputy Director for Enterprise 
Integration
James Beale, Brigadier General, USAF, Deputy Director for Operations
Robert Hutten, Deputy Director for Strategic Plans and Policy
Louise T. Neill, Deputy Director, Personnel and Administration

[FR Doc. 96-15523 Filed 6-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3610-05-M
Exhibit
      13.1




**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 China Southern Airlines Company Limited
      (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Liu
      Shao Yong, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Company, hereby certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:




1.
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; 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:
                June 29, 2007
            By:
            /s/
              Liu
              Shao YongName:
                Liu Shao YongTitle:
                Chairman of the Board of Directors




*
      This
      certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 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 §18 of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.




*
      A
      signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ORDER ESTABLISHING TRIAL DOCKET FOR THE MONTHS OF NOVEMBER AND

 DECEMBER, 2009, BEFORE THE HONORABLE PATRICK J. DUGGAN*

Listed below are the cases on this Court's trial docket for the months of November and

December, 2009. Counsel will be notified when their case reaches No. 5. After such

notice, counsel should be prepared to begin trial any time on 48 hours notice. It is

counsel's responsibility in all cases after they have been so notified to contact my clerk,

Marilyn Orem, at 234-5147, to ascertain the status of the trial docket. Unless otherwise

notified, this Court commences trial at 8:45 a.m. PLEASE BE PROMPT!

1. 09-10525 TRUSTEES OF THE BRICKLAYERS PENSION TRUST FUND, ET.AL V. 

 DESANTIS CONSTRUCTION CO.

2. 09-10832 ARNOLD V. CITIZENS FIRST BANCORP

3. 09-10347 HASSAN V. AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING

4. 09-11282 DANIEL V. ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO.

5. 07-10805 HUMPHRIES V. OAKLAND COUNTY ROAD COMMISSION

6. 08-14467 FLANAGAN V. STEWART, ET.AL

7. 08-14291 MILLS V. RODABAUGH, ET.AL

 09-10921 

8. 08-14886 PENNSYLVANIA LIFE INSURANCE CO. V. CITY OF RIVER ROUGE

9. 09-11691 CLEVELAND V. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS

s/Patrick J. Duggan 

Patrick J. Duggan

United States District Judge

Dated: October 1, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record

on October 1, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Marilyn Orem 

Case Manager

*PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT TRIAL WILL NOT BEGIN BEFORE THE FINAL

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE DATE.

IF THERE IS A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PENDING, FINAL PRETRIAL

CONFERENCE WILL BE RESCHEDULED APPROXIMATELY 10 DAYS AFTER ANY

DECISION ON SUCH MOTION.

2:09-cv-10347-PJD-MKM Doc # 41 Filed 10/01/09 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 311
2:08-cv-15326-PDB-MAR Doc # 90 Filed 08/09/12 Pg 1 of 14 Pg ID 4661
2:08-cv-15326-PDB-MAR Doc # 90 Filed 08/09/12 Pg 2 of 14 Pg ID 4662
2:08-cv-15326-PDB-MAR Doc # 90 Filed 08/09/12 Pg 3 of 14 Pg ID 4663
2:08-cv-15326-PDB-MAR Doc # 90 Filed 08/09/12 Pg 4 of 14 Pg ID 4664
2:08-cv-15326-PDB-MAR Doc # 90 Filed 08/09/12 Pg 5 of 14 Pg ID 4665
2:08-cv-15326-PDB-MAR Doc # 90 Filed 08/09/12 Pg 6 of 14 Pg ID 4666
2:08-cv-15326-PDB-MAR Doc # 90 Filed 08/09/12 Pg 7 of 14 Pg ID 4667
2:08-cv-15326-PDB-MAR Doc # 90 Filed 08/09/12 Pg 8 of 14 Pg ID 4668
2:08-cv-15326-PDB-MAR Doc # 90 Filed 08/09/12 Pg 9 of 14 Pg ID 4669
2:08-cv-15326-PDB-MAR Doc # 90 Filed 08/09/12 Pg 10 of 14 Pg ID 4670
2:08-cv-15326-PDB-MAR Doc # 90 Filed 08/09/12 Pg 11 of 14 Pg ID 4671
2:08-cv-15326-PDB-MAR Doc # 90 Filed 08/09/12 Pg 12 of 14 Pg ID 4672
2:08-cv-15326-PDB-MAR Doc # 90 Filed 08/09/12 Pg 13 of 14 Pg ID 4673
2:08-cv-15326-PDB-MAR Doc # 90 Filed 08/09/12 Pg 14 of 14 Pg ID 4674
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT KARLA YEDID R

AYGOZA C OZAR , Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 12-72729 Age n c y No. A098-467-396 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d De c e m

be r 17, 2013 ** B e fore : GOODW IN, W ALLAC E, a nd GR AB ER , C irc uit Judge s. Karla Ye did R ay goz a

C o z ar, a nat ive an d c itiz e n of M e xic o, pe titions for re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ orde r dism issing he r a p p e a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s de nia l of he r a pplic ation for c anc e lla

tion of re m o va l. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for substa ntia l e v ide nc e the 

# FIL ED D EC 26 2013 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. ** The pa

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

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).a ge nc y ’ s c ontinuous phy sic a l pre se nc e de te rm ination, Ibarra-Flore s v . Gonzale

s, 439 F.3d 614, 618 (9th C ir. 2006), a n d we de ny

the pe tition for re vie w . Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s de te rm ination tha t R ay goz a C oz ar did not de m onstra

t e the re quisitete n y e ars of c ontinuous phy sic a l pre se nc e in the Unite d State s whe re the re wa s inc onsiste n t te stim ony re late d to he r re side ntia l history

from 1995 to 1998 a

n d a la c k of doc um e n ta

ry e vide nc e for tha

t pe riod. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1229b(b)(1)(A). C ontra ry to R ay goz a

C oz ar’ s c o nte ntion, the a ge nc y wa s pe rm i tte d to c onside r R ay goz a C oz ar’ s fa i lure to supply e vide nc e c orroborating he r te stim ony in the a bse nc e of a

n a dve rse c re dibility

finding. Se e 8 U.S.C § 1229a (c )(4)(B ). In light of this disposition, we ne e d not re a c h R ay goz a

C o z ar’ s re m a ining c onte ntions. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 2 - 7 2 7 2 9 2