alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Azieb George BERHIE, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE; John Ashcroft, Attorney General, Respondents.

No. 02-70390.

INS No. A72^40-737.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted March 4, 2003.

Decided March 18, 2003.

Before T.G. NELSON, SILVERMAN, and MCKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

*225MEMORANDUM *

Azieb George Berhie petitions for review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying her application for asylum and withholding of deportation pursuant to Sections 208(a) and 243(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a), 1253(h). The BIA agreed with the decision of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”), concluding that Berhie “has failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear or clear probability of persecution in Ethiopia based on one of the five protected statutory grounds.”

We grant Berhie’s petition for review in part, on the ground that the BIA erroneously denied her claim of past persecution. We conclude “that the evidence presented was so compelling that no reasonable fact-finder could fail to find” past persecution. *INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 483-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). It is significant that the IJ determined that Berhie was credible. Berhie was a victim of violence. In her family’s home, she witnessed her brother’s killing and her sister’s abduction. Based upon this evidence and the remainder of the record, Berhie established that her past persecution was on account of her membership in a particular social group, her family. *See Mgoian v. INS,*184 F.3d 1029, 1036 (9th Cir.1999).

Because we do not reach the other issues raised on appeal, we remand to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. We observe, however, that the IJ’s assessment of Berhie’s fear of future persecution, stating that, “[it] seems clear that if the former government under Mengustu wanted to harm or persecute [petitioner], they had ample opportunity to do that when they entered the [petitioner’s] home in 1975 and killed her brother,” improperly relies on “personal conjecture and speculation, which we have stressed is no ‘substitute for substantial evidence.’ ” *Maini v. INS,*212 F.3d 1167, 1173 (9th Cir.2000) (internal citation omitted).

PETITION GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART, AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.

*

 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 33.1

Management’s Assertion onCompliance with Regulation AB Criteria

American Honda Finance Corporation (the ‘‘Asserting Party’’) is responsible for assessing compliance as of March  31,  2006 and for the period from March  28,  2006 (date of issuance of the Honda Auto Receivables 2006-1 Owner Trust) through March  31,  2006 (the ‘‘Reporting Period’’) with the servicing criteria set forth in Title 17, Section 229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations (the ‘‘CFR’’), except for the criteria set forth in Sections 229.1122(d)(1)(iii)-(iv), 229.1122(d)(2)(vi), 229.1122(d)(4)(ix)-(xiii) and 229.1122(d)(4)(xv) in the CFR, which the Asserting Party has concluded are not applicable to the servicing of the Honda Auto Receivables 2006-1 Owner Trust asset-backed securitization transaction backed by auto receivables and serviced by the Asserting Party (the ‘‘Applicable Servicing Criteria’’). The sole asset-backed securitization transaction covered by this report was the Honda Auto Receivables 2006-1 Owner Trust.

The Asserting Party has assessed its compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period and has identified two material instances of noncompliance with servicing criteria set forth in Sections 229.1122(d)(1)(i) and 229.1122(d)(1)(ii), respectively, of the CFR. Specifically, as of and for the four-day period ended March  31,  2006, the Asserting Party had not instituted policies and procedures to monitor any performance or other triggers and events of defaults in accordance with the transaction agreements or to monitor third party performance and compliance with servicing activities. The Asserting Party has furthermore concluded that, with the exception of the aforementioned material instance of noncompliance, the Asserting Party has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Honda Auto Receivables 2006-1 Owner Trust asset-backed securitization transaction backed by auto receivables serviced by the Asserting Party.

KPMG LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the assessment of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period as set forth in this assertion.

American Honda Finance Corporation

/s/ H. Tanaka            H. Tanaka, President

Date: March  21,  2007

----
Order entered October 16, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 18 - 00898 - CR MICHAEL EDWARD HARSS EMA, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 199th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 199 - 80837 - 2018



### O RDER On the Court’s own motion, we DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to remove the briefs in this case from the Court’s website and to seal the briefs in this case

. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 43.6.

/s/ DAVID L. BRIDGES PRESIDING JUSTICE
#### Lorraine JUPITER, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent.

No. 03-3116.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

March 6, 2003.

ORDER

Petitioner having paid the required filing fee, it is ORDERED that the order of dismissal and the mandate be, and the same hereby are, VACATED and RECALLED, and the petition for review is REINSTATED.

Petitioner’s brief is due within 21 days from the date of filing of this order.
Exhibit 32.1   CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, Richard M. Morrell, 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 Generation Zero Group, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2015, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Generation Zero Group, Inc.  By:/s/ Richard M. Morrell Richard M. Morrell Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)  August 13, 2015  The foregoing certification is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (Exchange Act), and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing. A signed original 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.
#### Welz & Zerweck, a Corporation, Appellant, v. Vincenzo Martino and Maria *893Martino, Respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Ho opinion. Woodward, Jenks, Gaynor, Rich and Miller, JJ., concurred.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND NOTES INCLUDED IN THIS FORM 10-Q AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           5,109
<SECURITIES>                                    67,292
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,229
<ALLOWANCES>                                       838
<INVENTORY>                                     14,957
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               104,008
<PP&E>                                         162,979
<DEPRECIATION>                                  41,884
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 245,407
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           46,685
<BONDS>                                         14,259
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        87,672
<OTHER-SE>                                      94,699
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   245,407
<SALES>                                        130,234
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               138,400
<CGS>                                          106,587
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  126,310
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,149
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,090
<INCOME-TAX>                                        41
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             12,049
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,049
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.80
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.80
        

</TABLE>
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 March 31, 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: May 17, 2010
By:
/s/ Nana BaffourNana Baffour

Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                      14,263,261
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  264,281
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 91,092,063
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      25,783,253
<DEPRECIATION>                              11,014,283
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             129,093,043
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                     68,108,580
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       462,553
<OTHER-SE>                                  47,595,632
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               129,093,043
<SALES>                                     24,616,408
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            28,461,512
<CGS>                                       22,435,393
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               23,238,408
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,996,647
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             147,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,079,457
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,079,457
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,079,457
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .23
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
  1.
    
    The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009
(the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
  /s/ W. Kirk Brassfield

W. Kirk BrassfieldSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1





P&F INDUSTRIES, INC.


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 on Form 10-Q/A of P&F Industries, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Richard A. Horowitz, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, 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.





/s/ RICHARD A. HOROWITZRichard A. HorowitzDate May 13, 2011
Principal Executive Officer
#### MURTES v. NEW ORLEANS PUBLIC SERVICE, Inc.

No. 15039.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Jan. 7, 1935.

W. J. & H. W. Waguespack, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Ivy G. Kittredge, of New Orleans, for ap-pellee.

JANVIER, Judge.

In this action ex delicto, William J. Mur-tes, a prospective passenger, seeks judgment against New Orleans Public Service, Inc., for injuries he sustained on the morning of April 4,1933, when, a.t the rear step of a street car of defendant at the corner of Esplanade avenue and Tonti street, he fell to the ground.

He charges that the car had stopped to take on passengers, and that he had placed upon the rear platform a one-gaFon can of paint and, in an effort to board the car, had then placed his right foot upon the step, and that, “while his right foot was upon the step and his left foot still on the ground and he was attempting to lift up his left foot, the motorman started said car suddenly with great violence and speed, thereby throwing petitioner’s body with great force unto the paved street. * * 3⁄8 ”

Defendant carrier denies that the car had been brought to a stop, and charges that, before it reached the usual stopping place, Murtes attempted to board it while it was still moving, and that he slipped and “fell to the pavement a very few feet before the car stopped at the regular spot on the far side of Tonti Street.”

In the district court there was judgment for defendant, the judge a quo having reached the conclusion that, “the accident was caused through the negligence of the plaintiff in boarding the street car while it was in motion.”

It will be readily seen that only a question of fact is involved, i. e.: Did the car start prematurely, as Murtes was attempting to board it, or did Murtes attempt to board it before it reached the usual stopping place and while it was yet in motion? The car was not equipped with a vestibule door, which automatically operates as the step is raised or lowered, so it would have been possible for a passenger to do what Murtes is charged with having done.

In a most voluminous record we find nothing to indicate that our brother below was in *261error in accepting defendant’s version of the affair as the correct one. On the contrary, all of the evidence which is believable corroborates that version, and any other conclusion than that reached in the district court would have been manifestly erroneous. We quite agree with the statement found in the reasons given by the trial judge that “the two witnesses produced by the plaintiff and who were passengers in an automobile were not present at the scene of the accident.”

We see no reason to discuss the evidence at length. It is overwhelmingly in favor of defendant.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed at the cost of plaintiff.

Affirmed.
### Filed 1/15/19 by Clerk of Supreme Court IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2019 ND 8
In the Interest of D.M.W., a child Jacqueline A. Gaddie, Assistant State’s Attorney, Petitioner and Appellee

v. D.M.W., a child, J.L.M. a/k/a J.L.C., mother, Respondents and D.J.W., fath er, Res pondent and Appellant

No. 20180413
Appeal from the Juvenile Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central Judicial District, the Honorable John A. Thelen, Judge.
AFFIRMED. Per Curiam. Jacqueline A. Gaddie , Assistant State’s Attorney, Grand Forks, ND, for petitioner and appellee; submitted on brief. Kyle A. Markwardt , Grand Forks, ND, for respondent and appellant; submitted on brief.Interest of D.M.W. No. 20180413

Per Curiam. [¶1] D.W. appeals from a juvenile court order terminating his pa rental rights to D.M.W. On appeal, D.W. argues there was not clear and convinci ng evidence to support termination of his parental rights because the petition er failed to prove deprivation is likely to continue, the juvenile court improperl y found D.W. abandoned D.M.W, and the juvenile court erred by finding reasonable effor ts were made to reunify the family. The juvenile court terminated parental rig hts based on several findings, including finding D.M.W. is subjected to aggravated c ircumstances under N.D.C.C. § 27-20-02(3)(f)(2) due to the length of D.W.’s incarc eration. We conclude the juvenile court’s finding D.M.W. is subjected to aggravated circumstances is supported by clear and convincing evidence, is not clearly erro neous, and independently supports the termination of D.W.’s parental right s. In Interest of Z.B. , 2018 ND 6, ¶ 1 , 905 N.W.2d 561 (“Any one of these three findings provides ade quate and independent grounds for termination.”). A finding of aggra vated circumstances negates the requirement for reasonable efforts of reunification . N.D.C.C. § 27-20- 32.2(4)(a) (“Reasonable efforts . . . are not required if . . . a parent has subjected a child to aggravated circumstances.”). Because the juvenile cou rt’s finding relating to aggravating circumstances is not clearly erroneous, we summa rily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (7)

. [¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J. Lisa Fair McEvers Daniel J. Crothers Jerod E. Tufte Jon J. Jensen

1
Exhibit 32.2  Certification of the Principal Accounting 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 quarterly report of China RuiTai International Holdings Co. Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Anna Herbst, the Chief Financial  Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, 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.  /s/ Anna HerbstChief Financial Officer Date: August 6, 2007
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, K. Scott Grassmyer, certify that:

 

1.     I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q/A of Oxford Industries, Inc.; and

 

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.

 

 

| Date: December 29, 2010 |   | /s/ K. Scott Grassmyer                                        |
|------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------|
|                         |   | K. Scott Grassmyer                                            |
|                         |   | Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Controller |

 

1

----
#### Grace E. Barnes, Respondent, v. New York City Railway Company (Sued as Interurban Street Railway Company), Appellant.

Judgment and order reversed and new trial ordered, costs to appellant to abide .event, unless plaintiff stipulates to reduce verdict to $3,500, in which event judgment as so modified and order affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Settle order on notice.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6161 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6161

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to temporarily reinstate the 
   employee retention credit for employers subject to closure due to 
                               COVID-19.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 7, 2021

Mrs. Miller of West Virginia (for herself, Mrs. Murphy of Florida, Mr. 
Hern, and Ms. Sewell) introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to temporarily reinstate the 
   employee retention credit for employers subject to closure due to 
                               COVID-19.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Employee Retention Tax Credit 
Reinstatement Act''.

SEC. 2. TEMPORARY REINSTATEMENT OF EMPLOYEE RETENTION CREDIT FOR 
              EMPLOYERS SUBJECT TO CLOSURE DUE TO COVID-19.

    (a) In General.--Section 3134 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
(as amended by section 80604 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs 
Act) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (c)(5), by striking ``and'' at the end of 
        subparagraph (A), by striking the period at the end of 
        subparagraph (B) and inserting ``, and'', and by adding at the 
        end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(C) which, with respect to such calendar quarter, 
                is not described in subclause (I) or (II) of paragraph 
                (2)(A)(ii).'', and
            (2) in subsection (n), by striking ``October 1, 2021 (or, 
        in the case of wages paid an eligible employer which is a 
        recovery startup business, January 1, 2022)'' and inserting 
        ``January 1, 2022''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to calendar quarters beginning after September 30, 2021.
                                 <all>
```