alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# United States Court **of Appeals** 
**f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 60923 Summary Calendar

**Jude Kajoh Kayeh,**

Petitioner **,**

versus

**Merrick Garland,** U.S. Attorney General **,**
Respondent

**.**

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A213 3 1 5 743

Before **Wiener, Elrod,** and **Engelhardt,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *
Jude Kajoh Kayeh , a native and citizen of Cameroon, challenges the
denial of his statutory motion to reopen , 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7), by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). A denial of a motion to reopen is reviewed under “a highly deferential abuse

- of

- discretion stan dard.” Ramos

- Portillo v.

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 3, 2022
Lyle W. Cay ce Clerk Case: 21-60923 Document: 00516417422 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/03/2022No. 21

- 60923

2 Barr , 919 F.3d 955, 958 (5th Cir. 2019). Motions to reopen are disfavored, and the movant bears a heavy burden. Gonzalez

- Cantu v. Sessions , 866 F.3d 302, 305 (5th Cir. 2017).
On review, Kayeh failed to address the BIA’s finding that the evidence he submitted with his motion to reopen lacked authentication or other indicia of reliability , which it found especially troubling in light of the IJ and BIA’s prior adverse credibility finding. Additionally, he failed to establish that the BIA abused its discretion in holding that the new evidence proffered would

not affect the outcome of his case. See Abubaker Abushagif v. Garland , 15 F.4th 323, 33 0 (5th Cir. 2021) (holding that t he BIA may deny the motion to

reopen if the movant has not introduced previously unavailable, material
evidence ); see also Qorane v. Barr , 919 F.3d 904, 91 2 (5th Cir. 2019) (holding
that “material evidence” within § 1229a(c ) (7)(C)(ii) means “likely to change the result of the alien’s underlying claim for relief ”).
Accordingly, Kayeh’s petition is **DENIED**

. Case: 21-60923 Document: 00516417422 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/03/2022
#### Ex Parte Leon Ball.

No. 25183.

January 17, 1951.

Relator represented himself.

*383
      *Willis Gresham,*Assistant Attorney General, Austin, for respondent, *H. E. Moore,*Warden of State Penitentiary.

*George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

MORRISON, Judge,

This is an original application for a writ of habeas corpus brought by the relator Leon Ball seeking his release from the Texas Prison System.

The record shows that relator was on June 27th, 1941, sentenced by the district court of Hale County, Texas, to a term of five years in the Texas Prison System.

Thereafter, on the 29th of February, 1944, relator was sentenced by the criminal district court of Harris County to a term of not less than two nor more than five years in the Texas Prison System. When the sentence was passed in Harris County, after properly pronouncing sentence, the court added these words: “Leon Ball, cumulative with sentence in Hale County.”

Unless the Harris County sentence is held to be cumulative with the Hale County sentence relator has served his time.

The Harris County sentence as above set forth is indefinite and therefore insufficient to show cumulation with the Hale County sentence.

Relator is ordered discharged.
Supplemental Agreement to the Import and Export Agency Framework
Agreement


 


This agreement was entered into by Party A and Party B on
19 April 2013 in Guangzhou.


 


China Southern Airlines Company Limited (hereinafter “Party
A”)


 


Southern Airlines (Group) Import and Export Trading Company
(hereinafter “Party B”)


 


Party A and Party B unanimously agreed under the principles
of fairness and mutual benefit to enter into this supplementary agreement on the basis of the “Import and Export Agency
Framework Agreement” (the “Original Agreement” below) on 28 January 2011, the specific terms were as follows:


 


		1.	The contents of Article 4, Clause 2 of the Original Agreement (“Special
                                         Provisions”) should be changed to “Both Party A and Party B unanimously agree
                                         that the transaction amount of the businesses under this agreement shall not exceed the
                                         maximum limit of RMB160 million per year.”



		2.	This supplementary agreement should be deemed as supplement to
                                         the Original Agreement, if there are conflicts between the related terms of the Original
                                         Agreement and those of this agreement, this supplementary agreement shall prevail.



		3.	This supplementary agreement shall take effect on the day both
                                         parties have signed with seal affixed after it is considered and approved by the Board
                                         of Directors of Party A.



		4.	This agreement is prepared in quadruplicate, each of both parties
                                         retains two copies which have the same legal force.



 


(No main text below)


 




    	1



    	 



    

 


(This page is the signature page of the “Supplemental
Agreement to the Import and Export Agency Framework Agreement”)


 


Party A: China Southern Airlines Company Limited


Authorized representative:


	[signature] [seal]


 


Party B: China Southern Airlines (Group) Import and Export
Trading Company Limited


Authorized representative:


	[signature] [seal]


 








    	2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1080

GREGORY BADER,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CREIGHTON WOLFE SOSSOMON,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Bryson City. Martin K. 

Reidinger, District Judge. (2:09-cv-00049-MR-DLH)

Submitted: September 29, 2011 Decided: October 4, 2011

Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Creighton W. Sossomon, Highland, North Carolina, for Appellant. 

Mark C. Kurdys, ROBERTS & STEVENS, P.A., Asheville, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Creighton Wolfe Sossomon appeals the district court’s 

order granting enforcement of a settlement agreement between 

Sossomon and Gregory Bader and its order denying his motion to 

amend the court’s judgment enforcing that agreement. On appeal, 

Sossomon argues that the district court erred in enforcing the 

agreement because its terms were not sufficiently clear, full 

payment was not yet due, and the court failed to conduct a 

plenary hearing. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

“We review [a] district court’s findings of fact for 

clear error and its decision whether to enforce a settlement 

agreement for abuse of discretion.” Hensley v. Alcon 

Laboratories, Inc., 277 F.3d 535, 541 (4th Cir. 2002). We 

review the denial of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion as well for 

abuse of discretion, Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp., LLC, 599 

F.3d 403, 407 (4th Cir. 2010). “[T]o exercise its inherent 

power to enforce a settlement agreement, a district court 

(1) must find that the parties reached a complete agreement and 

(2) must be able to determine its terms and conditions.” Id. at 

540-41. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its 

discretion in finding that the parties reached a complete 

agreement with clear and unambiguous terms and conditions and in 

ordering full payment in compliance with that agreement. 

Further, we find Sossomon’s contention that he did not receive a 
3

plenary hearing without merit, as the district court did, in 

fact, schedule two hearings, one of which Sossomon failed to 

attend.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. 

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.

AFFIRMED
Union Calendar No. 110

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 629

[Report No. 104–211]

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to parof Colorado. of, Rocky Mountain National Park in the State ties associated with, but outside the boundaries ticipate in the operation of certain visitor faciliJULY 28, 1995

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the

State of the Union and ordered to be printed
IB

Union Calendar No. 110

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 629

[Report No. 104–211]

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the operation

of certain visitor facilities associated with, but outside the boundaries

of, Rocky Mountain National Park in the State of Colorado.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 23, 1995

Mr. ALLARD introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Resources

JULY 28, 1995

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union

and ordered to be printed

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate

in the operation of certain visitor facilities associated

with, but outside the boundaries of, Rocky Mountain

National Park in the State of Colorado.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 629 RH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as ‘‘The Fall River Visitor

3 Center Act of 1995’’.

4 SEC. 2. EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS OUTSIDE AUTHORIZED

5 BOUNDARY OF ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL

6 PARK.

7 (a) VISITOR CENTER.—The Secretary of the Interior

8 is authorized to collect and expend donated funds and ex9 pend appropriated funds for the operation and mainte10 nance of a visitor center to be constructed for visitors to

11 and administration of Rocky Mountain National Park

12 with private funds on the privately owned lands described

13 in subsection (b).

14 (b) DESCRIPTION OF PARCELS OF LAND.—The lands

15 referred to in subsection (a) are described as follows:

16 Being land owned by H.W. Stewart, Inc., and

17 more particularly described as follows:

18 Beginning at the southwest corner of the

19 north one-half of section 16, township 5 north,

20 range 73 west of the sixth principal meridian,

21 Colorado; thence south eighty-seven degrees six

22 minutes east, eight hundred and fifty-four feet;

23 thence north two degrees west, three hundred

24 and forty-six and one-tenth feet to the south

25 boundary of the right-of-way of U.S. Highway

26 34; thence northwesterly along said south
3

•HR 629 RH

1 boundary nine hundred and sixty feet to the

2 west line of said section 16; thence south along

3 the west line of said section 16 to the point of

4 beginning.
104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on

A BILL

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


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 amended Quarterly Report of Midas Medici Group Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Nana Baffour, Chief Executive 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:





(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: August 17, 2010
By:
/s/ Nana BaffourNana Baffour

Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
#### Guy T. HELVERING, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Petitioner, v. Blanche M. GOURMAJENKO, Formerly Blanche M. Reynolds, Maude M. Cabell, and Samuel T. Morgan, Jr., Executors of the Will of Sally F. Morgan, Deceased, Respondents.

No. 4282.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

March 14, 1938.

James W. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Sewall Key, Sp. Asst, to Atty. Gen., and J. P. Wenchel, Chief Counsel, and Frank T. Horner, Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, both of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

.Legh R. Page and Patrick A. Gibson, both of Richmond, Va., for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

Case dismissed under rule 20 in accordance with stipulation of counsel.
#### Charles J. Johnstone, Respondent, *v.*Adolph Weibel, Appellant.

Second Department,

March 5, 1909.

CouH — jurisdiction of Municipal Court after service of summons-^replevin — form of judgment,

A party entitled to the possession, of goods wrongfully withheld may waive his right to replevy and await possession obtained by judgment.

On the.service of a summons stating that judgment will be taken.for a specific sum in case of default, the Municipal Court of the city of Jfew York Obtains jurisdiction to render judgment awarding the plaintiff possession of property wrongfully withheld, for when the. defendant has thus been brought, into court the plaintiff may set up any cause of action.

In an action of replevin a judgment awarding the plaintiff possession may be entered although the value- of the property be not found or damages assessed.

Appeal by the defendant, Adolph Weibel, from a judgment of the Municipal Court-of the city of Mew York" in favor of the plaintiff, rendered on September 28, 1908. ■

*Martin*Byrne, for the appellant,

*Arthur H. Cameron,*for the respondent.

Rich, J.:

This action was commenced by the service of a summons stating that if the' defendant failed' .to appear jiidgmen't would he-taken against him for twenty-six dollars and fifty cents and costs, of the action. The pleadings were oral, the plaintiff’s, attorney stating; that his complaint was for *“*claim and delivery and damages.” It appears from the 'bill of' particulars that his cause of [action is based upon the ownership of a ¡safe, fin the possession of the defendant, *167which he demands, with damages sustained in consequence of defendant’s refusal to deliver it to him. The municipal justice has found for the plaintiff, and directed the entry of j'udgment in his favor, adj'udging that he recover the possession of the safe with six dollars and fifty cents damages for its detention and costs. From the j'udgment accordingly entered this appeal is taken.

Defendant contends that the trial court had no jurisdiction because there was no affidavit or complaint accompanying the summons, and that the latter contains no reference to the nature of the action. The plaintiff did not seek to replevin the safe; he had the right to waive this privilege, and await possession obtained under his judgment. The court acquired jurisdiction by the service of the summons, and where a defendant has thus been brought into court, the plaintiff is at liberty to set up any cause of action that he chooses. *(Sharp*v. Clapp, 15 App. Div. 445.) The judgment did not fix the value of the property, and was not in the alternative, which the appellant argues presents reversible error. In this he is mistaken. In *Hammond*v. *Morgan*(101 N. Y. 179) it was held that a judgment for plaintiff in an action of replevin may be entered, although the jury has not assessed any damages or found the value of the property.

The judgment of the Municipal Court must be affirmed, with costs.

Woodward, Jenks, Gaynor and Miller, JJ., concurred.

Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.
EXHIBIT
32











CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL


OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,
Frank A. Jacobs, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report of Velocity Oil & Gas, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended
March 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form
10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
results of operations of Velocity Oil & Gas, Inc.





Date:  May
15, 2008





By:/s/
Frank A. Jacobs


Frank A.
Jacobs,


Chief
Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) and


Principal
Financial Officer
**Exhibit 99.3**

 

**Reporton Management's Assertion on Compliance with Specified Minimum ServicingStandards**

 

To the Board of Directors and Shareholder of

Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A.

 

We have examinedmanagement’s assertion, included in the accompanying Management’s Report, thatYamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A. complied with the servicing standards,identified in Exhibit A (“specified minimum servicing standards”) toManagement’s Report, for the period from April 1, 2004 through December 31,2004. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with thesespecified minimum servicing standards. Our responsibility is to express anopinion on management’s assertion about the Company’s compliance based on ourexamination.

 

Our examinationwas conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by theAmerican Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, includedexamining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with thespecified minimum servicing standards and performing such other procedures aswe considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examinationprovides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide alegal determination on the Company’s compliance with the specified minimumservicing standards.

 

In our opinion,management’s assertion that the Company complied with the specified minimumservicing standards, except as noted in the accompanying Management’s Report,for the period from April 1, 2004 through December 31, 2004 is fairly stated,in all material respects.

 

 
|   | Ernst &  Young LLP |
|--------|------------------------|

 

March 31, 2005

 

----
Exhibit 32.2



DSP GROUP, INC.



CERTIFICATION



In connection with the annual report of DSP Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Moshe Zelnik, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to
the best of my knowledge:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods
indicated.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



Date: March 15, 2004



/s/ Moshe ZelnikMoshe ZelnikChief Financial Officer
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 Q Lotus Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Marckensie Theresias, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:





(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ Marckensie Theresias


Marckensie Theresias


Chief Financial Officer


August 23, 2010
EXHIBIT 23.1



            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



PHC, Inc.
Peabody, MA


We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (No.'s,  333-2246,  333-41494,  333-76137 and 333-117146)
and Form S-8 (No.  333-102402) of PHC, Inc. of our report dated August 23, 2005,
relating to the consolidated  financial statements,  which appears in the Annual
Report to  Shareholders,  which is  incorporated  in this Annual  Report on Form
10-K.



/s/ BDO Seidman, LLP
Boston, MA

September 23, 2005





                                    -- 82 --