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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CARLOS MARES,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 22

- 1225

Agency No.
A092

- 986

- 681

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 19, 2023 **

San Francisco

, California

Before: BEA

, CHRISTEN and JOHNSTONE , Circuit Judges

.

Carlos Mares (“Petitioner”), a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his

appeal of the denial by an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) of his applications for

* 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

OCT 25 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 22

- 1225

withholding of removal an d protection under the Convention Against Torture

(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). We deny the petition.

Where the BIA has explicitly affirmed and adopted portions of the IJ’s

findings and cited Matter of Burbano , 2 0 I. & N. Dec. 872 (B

. I

. A

. 1994), we

review those portions of the IJ’s decision as though it were the BIA’s. Chuen Piu

Kwong v. Holder , 671 F.3d 872, 876 (9th Cir. 2011); Santiago

- Rodriguez v.

Holder , 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) . We review legal conclusions de novo

and factual findings for substantial evidence. Ali v. Holder , 637 F.3d 1025, 1028

–

29 (9th Cir. 2011).

Petitioner did not raise the particular social group of “Mexicans deported

from the United States” in his proceedings before the IJ

. Because this group w as

not before the IJ, the BIA did not err in declining to consider this group for the first

time on appeal, Honcharov v. Barr , 924 F.3d 1293, 1297 (9th Cir. 2019), and this

Court declines to consider this new particular social group in the first instance,

Santiago

- Rodriguez , 657 F.3d at 829.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that Petitioner has not met his

burden to show that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if returned to

Mexico. In the record

, Petitioner only provided generalized evidence of violence

and torture in Mexico, which is insufficient to meet his burden under the CAT.3 22

- 1225

Flores

- Vega v. Barr , 932 F.3d 878, 887 (9th Cir. 2019); Delgado

- Ortiz v. Holder

,

600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010).

PETITION DENIED.
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

I, Michael Leeb, the Chief Executive Officer of Skyline Multimedia
Entertainment, Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my
knowledge:

(1) the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the fiscal year ended
June 30, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13
(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
and

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: October 15, 2004




/s/ Michael Leeb
----------------
Name: Michael Leeb
Title: Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer
|  Dated: |  October 15, 2010 |  By:  |  /s/ |  Juhani Taskinen             |
|--------------|------------------------|-----------------|-----------|-----------------------------------|
|         |                   |            |      |  Juhani Taskinen             |
|         |                   |            |      |  Chief Executive Officer     |
|         |                   |            |      |                              |
|         |  October 15, 2010 |  By:       |  /s/ |  Trupti Mehta                |
|         |                   |            |      |  Trupti Mehta                |
|         |                   |            |      |  Principal Financial Officer |

----
NO. 07-11-0126-CV 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

AT AMARILLO 

PANEL A 

MAY 16, 2011 

______________________________ 

IN RE RICHARD DEWAYNE SNELSON, RELATOR 

_________________________________ 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ARISING OUT OF PROCEEDINGS 

BEFORE THE 181ST DISTRICT COURT OF RANDALL COUNTY; 

NO. 16,447-B; HONORABLE JOHN B. BOARD, JUDGE PRESIDING 

_______________________________ 

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

 Relator, Richard Dewayne Snelson, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

files this original proceeding seeking to compel the Honorable John B. Board to enter a 

ruling on motions filed challenging an Order to Withdraw Inmate Funds signed on 

February 25, 2010, authorizing funds to be withdrawn from Relator's inmate account to 

satisfy $2,228.50 for court cost, fines and fees.1

 On March 21, 2011, the trial court 

entered a ruling on Relator's challenges and signed an Amended Order to Withdraw 

Funds. Judge Board has performed his ministerial duty to rule on the pending motion. 

 

1

Snelson filed a motion to rescind the order of February 25, 2010, and then appealed the partial denial of 

that motion. By an opinion issued today, this Court disposed of that appeal. See Snelson v. State, No. 

07-10-0259-CV, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS __ (Tex.App.--Amarillo 2010, no pet. h.). 
2 

See Safety-Kleen Corp. v. Garcia, 945 S.W.2d 268, 269 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 1997, 

orig. proceeding). A particular ruling, however, is generally discretionary. In re 

Washington, No. 09-07-0246-CV, 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 6449, at *2 (Tex.App.--

Beaumont Aug. 16, 2007, orig. proceeding). Consequently, Relator's request for 

mandamus relief is rendered moot. 

 Patrick A. Pirtle 

 Justice
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 13 - 00081 - CV

IN RE WILLIAM THOMAS LEONARD RELATOR

------------ ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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

### ORDER

------------ By order dated March 6, 2013, the court converted R elator Willi am Thomas Leonard’s criminal appeal into an original proceeding for a writ of mandamus

. In the same order, we requested that the State file a response concerning the merits of Relator’s request for mandamus relief. The State filed a response on March 18, 2013, asking in part that Relator first be required to provide a record as required by rule of appellate procedure 52.7 and that the State be able to respond o nly after Relator had done so. Relator filed a reply on March 21, 2013, and attached various do cuments that Relator states are “true and correct copies of the originals.” The documents attached to Relator’s reply brief are not, however, sworn or certified copies as is required by rule 52.7.2

Given that this proceeding began as a criminal appeal and that the court converted the case to an original proceeding by construing Relator’s filings as a petition for writ of mandamus, we agree that Relator should be given an opportunity to comply with rule 52.7 by provid ing the court and the State with

sworn or certified copies of the documents that he contends show h is entitle ment to mandamus relief. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.7. Accordingly , it is ordered that:
1. Relator shall file with the court a record that complies with rule of appellate procedure 52.7 with in ten days of the date of this order. Relator may, but is not required to, file a brief seeking mandamus relief. If Relator files a brief, the brief must comply with rule of appellate procedure 52.3 and this court’s local
rules. The mailbox rule shall not apply

. 2. The State may then file a brief with the court within ten days of the date that Relator files a record as ordered above. The mailbox rule shall not apply.
3. Any reply shall be filed within five days of the date that the State files a bri ef as ordered above. The mailbox rule shall not apply, and the court may consider and decide the case before a reply is filed. Tex. R. App. P. 52.5. The clerk of this court is directed to transmit a copy of this order to the attorneys of record, the Stat e, the trial court judge, and the trial court clerk.3

DATED April 9 , 2013

.

PER CURIAM
PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.
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 Sonic Solutions (the "Company") on Form
        10-K for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
        Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David C. Habiger,
        Chief Executive 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) 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
                  at the dates and for the periods
                  indicated.
  This
        certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities
        and Exchange Commission.
   Date:
        February 25, 2008
   By: /s/
        David C. Habiger
  Name:
        David C. Habiger
 Title:
        President and Chief Executive Officer
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-30349

Summary Calendar

JEROME B. HINES, JR.,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

C. MARTIN LENSING, Warden,

Hunt Correctional Center,

Respondent-Appellee.

--------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 97-CV-2618-I

--------------------- February 7, 2001

Before DAVIS, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

In this appeal from the denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2 254

habeas corpus petition, the d istrict court has granted Jerome B.

Hines, Jr., a Louisiana prisoner (# 81727), a certificate of

appealability (“COA”) with respect to the issue whether the trial

court sentenced him vindictively for his having exercised his right

to stand trial and whether his counsel performed ineffectively by

failing to raise this issue on direct appeal.

Although the trial judge stated that one of the reasons

for Hines’ sentence was his “audacity to challenge the facts of2

this case

. . . which the court found incredible from the

beginning,” the Louisiana Court of Appeal’s conclusio n that the

trial judge’s full statement of reasons referred to Hines’ lack of

remorse was not objectively unreasonable, and its decision thus did

not involve an unreasonable application of clearly established law.

See Williams v. Taylor

, 120 S. Ct. 1495, 1521 (2000); United States

v. Devine , 934 F.2d 1325, 1338 (5th Cir. 1991) (defendant may not

be punished for simply exercising his right to stand trial); 28

U.S.C. § 2254(d).

Hines urges this court to broaden his COA to certify his

claims that: (1) his multiple-bill sentencing was invalid because

one of the prior guilty pleas on which it was based had been

involuntarily entered; (2) counsel performed ineffectively by

failing to object to improper closing arguments by the prosecution;

and (3) counsel performed inef fectively by failing to conduct a

thorough pretrial investigation. S ee United States v. Kimler

, 150

F.3d 429, 431 (5th cir. 1998) (§ 2255 case). Hines has not,

however, made a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right as to these claims. Accordingly, his request

that this court broaden the district court’s order granting COA is

DENIED.

AFFIRMED; MOTION TO BROADEN COA DENIED.
18431.

#### HALL *v.*MATTHEWS, Superintendent.

Argued January 11, 1954

Decided January 15, 1954

Rehearing denied February 11, 1954.

*402
      *Robert Cmpenter, Ferrin Mathews,*for plaintiff in error.

*Eugene Cook, Attorney-General, Lamar Sizemore, Assistant Attorney-General, W. Dan Greer,*contra.

Worrill, Justice.

“All criminal cases shall be tried in the county where the crime was committed, except cases in the superior courts where the judge is satisfied that an impartial jury cannot be obtained in such county.” Code § 27-1101; Constitution, art. VI, sec. XIV, par. VI (Code, Ann., § 2-4906).

Counsel for the plaintiff in error rely on *Barrs*v. *State,*22 *Ga. App.*642 (97 S. E. 86), involving a case where a defendant pleaded guilty in a county other than the county in which the crime was alleged to have been committed, and where it was held that “A party who has been tried and convicted by a court not having jurisdiction of the offense can not plead prior jeopardy if subsequently indicted for the same offense in a court having jurisdiction thereof.”

The above decision was rendered prior to the constitutional amendment (Ga. L. 1939, p. 78) which declares that judges of the superior court “may, on reasonable notice, to the parties, at any time, in vacation, at chambers, hear and determine, by interlocutory or final judgment, any matter or issue, where a jury verdict is not required, or may be waived.” Constitution, art. VI, sec. IV, par. VIII (Code, Ann., § 2-3908).

Under the broad powers conferred by the above-stated constitutional amendment, the judge of the Pataula Circuit was not without authority while presiding in the Superior Court of Miller County, to receive the plea of guilty to a crime which was alleged to have been committed in Randolph County, and the judgment against the defendant in the Superior Court of Miller County was not void for want of jurisdiction of the subject matter.

*403Accordingly, the judge of the trial court did not err in remanding the defendant to the custody of the superintendent.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Duck-worth, C. J., not participating.*
Exhibit 23.1
 
 
 Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
 
 We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-100842, 333-72990, and 333-109962) and the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-54006), respectively, of our reports dated June 16, 2010, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Daktronics, Inc. and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Daktronics, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended May 1, 2010.
 
 Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of Daktronics, Inc. listed on Item 15(a). This schedule is the responsibility of Daktronics, Inc.’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits. In our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above, when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.
 
 
 Minneapolis, Minnesota
 June 16, 2010
EXHIBIT 23.1

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We consent to the  incorporation by reference in Post Effective  Amendment No. 1
to Registration  Statement No. 33-94914 on Form S-8,  Registration No. 333-30237
on Form S-8 and Registration  No. 333-22535 on Form S-3 of Hirsch  International
Corp. and  Subsidiaries  of our report dated April 15, 2005,  except for Note 16
which is as of April 20, 2005,  appearing in this Annual  Report on Form 10-K of
Hirsch International Corp. and Subsidiaries for the year ended January 29, 2005.


/s/BDO Seidman, LLP
-------------------
BDO Seidman, LLP
Melville, New York
April 29, 2005
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION**I, Robert F. McCullough, Jr., certify that:(1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of CytoCore, Inc., formerly known asMolecular Diagnostics, Inc.;(2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;(3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;(4) The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b. evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc. disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter(the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting; and(5) The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’sauditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small businessissuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.                                                                     /s/ Robert F. McCullough, Jr.   Robert F. McCullough, Jr.   Chief Financial Officer Dated:  August 21, 2006
Exhibit 32.1




                  Certification of Principal Executive Officer
                           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)


I, Peter P. Gombrich, Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer) of
Molecular Diagnostics, Inc. (the "Registrant"), certify, to the best of my
knowledge, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A for the
period ended September 30, 2003 of the Registrant (the "Report"), that:

      (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 represents, in all
            material aspects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Registrant.

Date:  November 20, 2003

                                                 /s/  Peter P. Gombrich
                                                 -----------------------------
                                                 Peter P. Gombrich


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

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 law,
be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
**Exhibit
31.2**
 
 **CERTIFICATIONS**
 
 I, Julie
H. Edwards, certify that:
 
 1. I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line
Company, LP;
 
 2. Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;
 
 3. Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;
 
 4. The
registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 
 (a)
    Designed
      such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
      controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
      that material information relating to the registrant, including its
      consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
      entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
      prepared;
 
 (b)
    Evaluated
      the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures
      and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
      the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period
      covered by this report based on such evaluation;
and
 
 (c)
    Disclosed
      in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over
      financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent
      fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
      annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
      materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial
      reporting; and
 
 5. The
registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 
 (a)
    All
      significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
      operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
      reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,
      process, summarize and report financial information;
and
 
 (b)
    Any
      fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
      employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control
      over financial reporting.
 
 
 
 Date:
August 9, 2005
 
 /s/
JULIE H. EDWARDS
 Julie H.
Edwards
 Senior
Vice President and
 Chief
Financial Officer