alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

JLA/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BACHITTAR SINGH CHOHAN,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-71893

Agency No. A095-599-669

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 16, 2010** 

Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

Bachittar Singh Chohan, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of

a Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration

judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal,

FILED

FEB 23 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
JLA/Research 2 07-71893

and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence an IJ’s adverse

credibility finding. Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 741 (9th Cir. 2007). We deny

the petition for review.

The agency found Chohan not credible, inter alia, because there were

inconsistencies regarding the circumstances of Chohan’s son’s two arrests and

releases from detention, and the agency reasonably rejected Chohan’s proffered

explanation for the inconsistencies. See Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042-

43 (9th Cir. 2001) (substantial evidence supports adverse credibility determination

based on inconsistencies that go to heart of the claim). Substantial evidence also

supports the agency’s credibility determination based on the IJ’s demeanor finding,

see Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1151 (9th Cir. 2003) (special deference

given to demeanor findings based on non-verbal communications), and based on

Chohan’s failure to provide corroboration, see Sidhu v. INS, 220 F.3d 1085, 1092

(9th Cir. 2000) (“where the [agency] has reason to question the applicant’s

credibility, and the applicant fails to produce non-duplicative, material, easily

available corroborating evidence and provides no credible explanation for such

failure, an adverse credibility finding will withstand appellate review.”). In the
JLA/Research 3 07-71893

absence of credible testimony, Chohan’s asylum and withholding of removal

claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Because Chohan’s CAT claim is based on the testimony the agency found

not credible, and he points to no evidence showing it is more likely than not he will

be tortured in India, his CAT claim also fails. Id. at 1156-57. 

Petitioner’s motion to substitute counsel is granted.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
EXHIBIT
23.1





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form
S-8 (File No. 333-149190), Form S-3 (File No. 333-159888) and Form S-3/A (File No. 333-153579) of BreitBurn
Energy Partners L.P. of our report dated March 2, 2009 relating to the
consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K/A.




/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers
    LLP





PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP


Los
Angeles, California


March 17,
2010
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6687

CHRISTOPHER T. NEWBILL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DOCTOR MUSSELMAN,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge.

(CA-96-384-R)

Submitted: October 17, 1996 Decided: October 24, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher T. Newbill, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Newbill v. Musselman, No. CA-96-384-R (W.D. Va. Apr. 22,

1996). We deny Appellant's motion for 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
177 La. 15

#### AGRICULTURAL SUPPLY CO., Inc., v. LIVIGNE et al. (LIVIGNE, Intervener).

No. 32249.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 27, 1933.

Ponder & Ponder, of Amite, for relator.

Ellis, Ellis & Ellis, of Amite, for respondent.

LAND, Justice.

Agricultural Supply Company, Inc., obtained judgment for about $700 against the defendants Biaggio and Caterina Livigne, and seized under execution a block and a half in the town of Independence, parish of Tan-gipahoa, and advertised same for sale.

Relator, Frank P. Livigne, intervened in the seizure, alleging that he had purchased from defendants on August 2, 1930, for the price of $2,500, the property herein seized by plaintiff, and had duly reco.rded his notarial act of sale; but that, subsequent to his purchase and the recordation of his deed, plaintiff obtained judgment against his vendors, .and on December 1, 1932, seized the property of relator and advertised same for sale on January 14, 1933.

Relator filed a rule for a preliminary injunction returnable on January 12, 1933, and, upon failure of the district judge to appear, the rule was continued, and relator then obtained a temporary restraining order for a period of ten days, pending .the trial of the rule for a preliminary injunction.

When hearing was had on the rule, respondent judge proceeded to render judgment decreeing the sale from defendants to relator to be a pure simulation and null and void, as specially set up in answer of plaintiff, defendant in rule. He also dismissed the rule at relator’s costs, and reserved to plaintiff the right to sue for damages for the wrongful issuance of the temporary restraining order herein granted.

Relator timely applied for a suspensive appeal from the judgment herein rendered against him. Respondent judge refused to grant the application and, thereupon, relator petitioned to this court for writs of prohibition and mandamus to stay further proceedings and to compel the granting to him of a suspensive appeal.

On the trial of the rule for a preliminary injunction, the only question for decision before respondent judge was whether *366such injunction should be granted or refused. Act No. 29 of 1924, § 2.

It is true that a suspensive appeal cannot be applied for as a matter of right from an order granting or refusing a preliminary-injunction. Act No. 29 of 1924, § 5.

But, in the case before us, respondent judge has not only refused to grant a preliminary injunction, but has passed also upon the merits of the case, by decreeing the nullity of the sale from defendants to relator of. the property herein seized by plaintiff.

Necessarily, this is a final judgment from which relator has the right to prosecute a suspensive appeal to this court. O. P. arts. 539, 565.

It is therefore ordered that a peremptory writ of mandamus issue herein to respondent Judge, the Hon. Nathan B. Tycer, directing him to grant relator, Frank P. Ldvigne, an order for a suspensive appeal to this court, returnable according to law, from the judgment read and signed in the lower court, January 24, 1933, and to fix the amount of suspensive appeal bond.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 165 (Monday, August 25, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 50060]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19602]


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

LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION


Request for Comments--LSC Budget Request for FY 2010

AGENCY: Legal Services Corporation.

ACTION: Request for Comments--LSC Budget Request for FY 2010.

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

SUMMARY: The Legal Services Corporation is beginning the process of 
developing its FY 2010 budget request to Congress and is soliciting 
suggestions as to what the request should be.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 15, 
2008.

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be submitted by mail, fax or e-mail to 
Charles Jeffress, Chief Administrative Officer, Legal Services 
Corporation, 3333 K St., NW., Washington, DC, 20007; 202-295-1630 
(phone); 202-337-6386 (fax); <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9dfef7f8fbfbeff8eeeeddf1eefeb3faf2eb"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ceada4aba8a8bcabbdbd8ea2bdade0a9a1b8">[email protected]</span></a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Jeffress, Chief Administrative 
Officer, Legal Services Corporation, 3333 K St., NW., Washington, DC, 
20007; 202-295-1630 (phone); 202-337-6386 (fax); <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8fece5eae9e9fdeafcfccfe3fceca1e8e0f9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d8bbb2bdbebeaabdabab98b4abbbf6bfb7ae">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    The Legal Services Corporation's (LSC) mission is to promote equal 
access to justice in our Nation and to provide for high-quality civil 
legal assistance to low income persons. LSC submits an annual budget 
request directly to Congress and receives an annual direct 
appropriation to carry out its mission. For the current fiscal year (FY 
2008), LSC received an appropriation of $350,490.000 of which 
$332,390,000 was for basic field programs and required independent 
audits; $3,000,000 was for the Office of Inspector General; $12,500,000 
was for management and administration; $2,100,00 was for technology 
initiative grants; and $500,000 was for loan repayment assistance. Pub. 
L. 110-161, 121 Stat. 1844 (2007).
    As part of its annual budget and appropriation process, the Finance 
Committee of the LSC Board of Directors will meet on October 14, 2008, 
to make a recommendation to the full Board. Accordingly, LSC is 
currently in the process of formulating its FY 2010 budget request.
    LSC invites public comment on what its FY 2010 budget request 
should be. Interested parties may submit comments to LSC by September 
15, 2008. More information about LSC can be found at LSC's Web site: 
http://www.lsc.gov.

    Dated: August 19, 2008.
Victor M. Fortuno,
Vice President & General Counsel.
[FR Doc. E8-19602 Filed 8-22-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7050-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Claude W. Waddell, Respondent, v. Hudson River Electric Power Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concurred, except Williams, J., who dissented.
CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT


I,  Jimmy  S.H.  Lee,  Chief Executive Officer of Mercer International Inc. (the
"Company"),  certify  pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18  U.S.C.  Section  1350,  that:

(1)  the  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period
     ended  September  30,  2002  (the  "Report")  fully  complies  with  the
     requirements  of  Section  13(a) 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:  November  14,  2002


                                              /s/  Jimmy  S.H.  Lee
                                              -------------------------
                                              Jimmy  S.H.  Lee
                                              Chief  Executive  Officer
Exhibit 4.32

 

POWER OF ATTORNEY

 

I, Huang Hui, citizen of the People’s Republic of China (the “PRC”), PRC ID card number 320622197212230041, hereby irrevocably authorize Beijing Wole Technology Co., Ltd. (“Wole”) or the individual or entity that is designated by Wole (each, a “Representative”) to the extent permitted by applicable laws of the PRC, as my sole attorney to single exercise the following powers and rights during the term of this Power of Attorney pursuant to Section 2.5 of the Amended and Restated Business Operations Agreement entered into among Wole and Guangzhou Qianjun Technology Co., Ltd. (“Qianjun”), Huang Hui and me on December 4, 2013 (the “Operations Agreement”) :

 

I hereby authorize and designate the Representative to vote on my behalf at the shareholders’ meetings of Qianjun and exercise the full voting rights as its shareholder as granted to me by law and under the Articles of Association of Qianjun, including but not limited to, the right to propose the holding of shareholders’ meeting, to accept any notification about the holding and discussion procedure of the meeting, to attend the shareholders’ meeting of Qianjun and exercise the full voting rights (such as, to serve as my authorized representative on the shareholders’ meeting of Qianjun, to designate and appoint the executive director or directors of the Board and the general manager and to decide the allotment of the profits, etc.), to sell or transfer any or all of my equity interest in Qianjun, etc.

 

The above authorization and designation are based upon the fact that the Representative is acting as an employee of Wole and Wole has appointed and authorized the Representative as its authorized representative in accordance with the Operations Agreement. Once the Representative loses her title or position in Wole or Wole issues a written notice to dismiss or replace the Representative with another person as its authorized representative, this Power of Attorney shall become invalid immediately and I will withdraw such authorization to him immediately and designate/authorize another individual(s) designated by Wole to exercise all the rights mentioned above. I will sign another Power of Attorney in form and substance satisfactory to Wole.

 

The term of this Power of Attorney is ten (10) years from its date of execution, unless the Operations Agreement is terminated early for any reason or the relevant events as outlined above occur.

 

This Power of Attorney shall, upon becoming effective, replace all the previous POAs I had signed previously.

 

 

	
 
    	
Huang   Hui
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
/s/ Huang Hui
    
	
 
    	
Date: December 4,   2013
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gary Lee MORRIS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-50437. D.C. No. CR-01-00641-NMM-01.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 10, 2003.*

Decided July 28, 2003.

*671Before SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

The district court did not commit plain error during its Rule 11 plea colloquy. The district court specifically inquired whether Morris was using any medications; extensively questioned Morris in order to evaluate his state of mind; and questioned Morris’s counsel concerning Morris’s ability to comprehend the proceedings. Morris also actively participated in the proceedings. As a result, Morris fails to raise a reasonable doubt regarding his mental competence to plead guilty. *See Miles v. Stainer,*108 F.3d 1109, 1112 (9th Cir.1997).

Due to an insufficiently developed record, Morris’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim is “inappropriate on direct appeal.” *United States v. McKenna,*327 F.3d 830, 845 (9th Cir.2003) (citation omitted).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of FLM Minerals Inc.(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended February 28, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, George Heard, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Dated this 20th day of April, 2007.



| | GEORGE HEARD           
| | -----------------------
| | George Heard           
| | Chief Executive Officer















---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Office of the United States Trade Representative

# AGENCY:

Office of the United States Trade Representative. 

# ACTION:

Notice of a partially opened meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

The Industry Trade Advisory Committee on Small and Minority Business (ITAC-11) will hold a meeting on Monday, September 15, 2008, from 9 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. The meeting will be closed to the public from 9 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. and opened to the public from 12:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. 

# DATES:

The meeting is scheduled for September 15, 2008, unless otherwise notified. 

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce-Herbert C. Humphrey Building, B841-B, Washington, DC. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Laura Hellstern, DFO for ITAC-11 at (202) 482-3222, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

During the opened portion of the meeting, the following agenda items will be considered. 
    - Results of Americas Competitiveness Forum.
    - Results of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Ministerial Meetings.
    - FY08 vs. FY07 U.S./ Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM) Loans Issued to Small and Minority Business.
    - World Bank Programs for Small Business/IFC.
    - Gold Key Service in Latin America.
    - U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (UPTO) Work that Helps to Promote U.S. Exports.

Colleen J. Litkenhaus, 

Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Liaison. 

[FR Doc. E8-19283 Filed 8-19-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3190-W7-P
192 La. 1046.

#### GRISAMORE v. BRENNAN.

No. 35081.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 29, 1939.

*126Arthur B. Leopold, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Maurice B. Gatlin, of New Orleans, for appellee.

PONDER, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing the defendant’s rule for alimony pendente lite.

The plaintiff instituted a suit against the defendant for separation from bed and board on the ground of abandonment. The defendant- in her answer denied that she had abandoned the plaintiff and by way of reconventional demand claimed that the plaintiff had abandoned her and asked for a judgment in her favor for separation from bed and board. The defendant ruled the plaintiff to show cause why he should not be condemned to pay the defendant $9 per week alimony during the pendency of the suit. At the trial of the rule the plaintiff proposed to receive his wife in a residence occupied by his parents. The trial judge dismissed the defendant’s rule and the defendant has appealed.

After the appeal was lodged in this Cpurt, the plaintiff moved to dismiss the appeal. In the motion to dismiss the appeal- the plaintiff virtually challenged the merit of the defendant’s demand for alimony pen-dente lite and in passing on the motion to dismiss the appeal it was necessary for this Court to decide as to the merit of the defendant’s claim. This Court denied the motion to dismiss the appeal setting forth reasons therefor. When this case came up for hearing on the appeal the counsel, for both the appellant and appellee, stated in open court that the decision rendered on the. motion to dismiss the appeal disposed of the point in controversy. The counsel submitted the matter without argument. Having determined that the defendant is entitled to alimony during the pendency of the suit, in passing on the motion to dismiss the appeal, it is unnecessary for us to again discuss that issue. We set forth our reasons and reviewed the previous decisions of this Court when we overruled the motion to dismiss the appeal and it could serve no good purpose to reiterate the reasons and again review the previous decisions of this Court. Grisamore v. Grisamore, 191 La. 770, 186 So. 98.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the lower court is reversed and set aside and it is now ordered, adjudged and decreed that there be judgment in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff, condemning the plaintiff to pay the defendant $9 per week alimony during the pendency of this suit. The plaintiff to pay all costs.

FOURNET, J., absent.
#### Aida DE CASTRO, also known as Zenaida Ortega, also known as Aida Ortega Van Patten, also known as Aida Cepeda, also known as Aida Manalastas, also known as Aida Cruz, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 01-71899.

INS No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 14, 2003.*

Decided March 19, 2003.

Before NOONAN, TASHIMA, and WARD LAW, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

*949MEMORANDUM **

Aida De Castro petitions for review of the decision the Board of Immigration Appeal (BIA) to deny her request for a waiver of deportation or voluntary departure under INA § 244(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1254(a)(1) (repealed 1996). Under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 (“IIRIRA”), deportation proceedings, such as De Castro’s, initiated prior to April 1, 1997, for which a final order of deportation is issued after October 30, 1996, are subject to the “transitional rules of judicial review.” *Kalaw v. INS,*133 F.3d 1147, 1150-51 (9th Cir.1997); IIRIRA § 309(c)(4).

According to these transitional rules, we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision that De Castro did not establish good moral character under the last sentence of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f). *Kalaw,*133 F.3d at 1152; IIRIRA § 309(c)(4)(E) (“[TJhere shall be no appeal of any discretionary decision under [INA § 244(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1254(a)(1) ].”). We also lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination that even if De Castro had established statutory eligibility, she would not merit the favorable exercise discretion. *Id.; Sanchez-Cruz v. INS,*255 F.3d 775, 778 (9th Cir. 2001).

PETITION DISMISSED

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.