alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Artemio NAHUI-ORTEGA, Petitioner, v. John D. ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 02-73920. INS No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 21, 2003.*

Decided July 28, 2003.

*687Before LEAVY, HAWKINS and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM**

Artemio Nahui-Ortega, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an Immigration Judge’s denial of his application for asylum and withholding of deportation, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. Because the transitional rules apply, *see Kalaw v. INS,*133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997), we have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). We review an adverse credibility finding for substantial evidence, *Singhr-Kaur v. INS,*183 F.3d 1147, 1149-50 (9th Cir.1999), and we deny the petition for review.

The IJ based its adverse credibility finding on inconsistencies in Nahui-Ortega’s testimony that went to the heart of his claim, and on Nahui-Ortega’s demeanor and “completely and inherently incredible” description of his alleged persecution. The record does not compel the conclusion that Nahui-Ortega’s testimony was credible. *See id.*

Nahui-Ortega also failed to demonstrate that he did not participate in the persecution of others while involved with the Sendero Luminoso movement in Peru, making him statutorily ineligible for asylum. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(B); *Al-Harbi v. INS,*242 F.3d 882, 885 n. 2 (9th Cir.2001) (“refugee” does not include any person who participated in the persecution of others on account of a protected ground). Accordingly, Nahui-Ortega failed to establish eligibility for asylum or withholding of deportation. *See Singhr-Kaur v. INS,*183 F.3d at 1149-50; *Al-Harbi,*242 F.3d at 885 n. 2.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Nahui-Ortega is not entitled to relief under the Convention Against Torture because he did not demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured upon return to Peru if he is deported. *See*8 C.F.R. § 208.16; *Kamalthas v. INS,*251 F.3d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir.2001).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

**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.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

290 

KA 14-01913 

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, CURRAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ERICA P. RECORD, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

LEANNE LAPP, PUBLIC DEFENDER, CANANDAIGUA (CARA A. WALDMAN OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

R. MICHAEL TANTILLO, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CANANDAIGUA (JEFFREY R.

FRIESEN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario County Court (Frederick G.

Reed, A.J.), rendered February 7, 2014. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of burglary in the second degree

and petit larceny. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting her

upon her plea of guilty of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law

§ 140.25 [2]) and petit larceny (§ 155.25). The record establishes

that County Court advised defendant of the maximum sentence that could

be imposed upon a violation of the conditions of the guilty plea, and

thus defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal encompasses her

contention that the enhanced sentence is unduly harsh and severe (see

People v VanDeViver, 56 AD3d 1118, 1119, lv denied 11 NY3d 931,

reconsideration denied 12 NY3d 788).

Entered: March 24, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 40569 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

CRISTHIAN OSORNIO

,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:16

- CR

- 210

- 1

Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Cristhian Osornio has moved for

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California

, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).

Osornio h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counse l’s brief and the
relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s
assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.

* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 1, 2019
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-40569 Document: 00514857684 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/01/2019No. 18

- 40569

2 Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is

excus ed from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 18-40569 Document: 00514857684 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/01/2019
Case 1 :05-cv-00491-T-JH Document 16 Filed 04/07/2006 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

STEVEN A . SWAN

V . RI CA No. 05-491-T

NH CA No . 05-401-JD

PAUL J . BARBADORO, et al .

ORDER REFERRING MATTER TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE

AND APPLYING LOCAL RULES OF DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

On January 17, 2006, this Court issued an order directing

the plaintiff to show cause why the case should not be dismissed

for failure to serve the defendants . The plaintiff responded by

pointing out that unless otherwise ordered by the judge presiding

by designation, the Local Rules of the District of New Hampshire

apply and those rules do not permit the Clerk to issue summonses in

cases brought by incarcerated individuals unless authorized by a

magistrate judge .

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that :

1 . The matter is referred to a magistrate judge for review

and appropriate action in accordance with Loca l

Rule 77 .5 of the District of New Hampshire .

Civi l

2 . Henceforth, this case shall be gove r

Rules of the District of Rhode Island .

By Order

ned by the Local

ENTER :

Dep C1e

Ernest C . Torres

Chief Judge

Date : ~~ OE 1 2006
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1104

To amend title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974

to provide, in the case of an employee welfare benefit plan providing

benefits in the event of disability, an exemption from preemption under

such title for State tort actions to recover damages arising from the

failure of the plan to timely provide such benefits.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 20, 2001

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

Committee on Education and the Workforce

A BILL

To amend title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to provide, in the case of an employee

welfare benefit plan providing benefits in the event of

disability, an exemption from preemption under such title

for State tort actions to recover damages arising from

the failure of the plan to timely provide such benefits.

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

•HR 1104 IH

1 SECTION. 1. EXEMPTION FROM ERISA PREEMPTION FOR

2 STATE CAUSES OF ACTION IN TORT TO RE3 COVER DAMAGES ARISING FROM THE FAIL4 URE OF A PLAN PROVIDING BENEFITS IN THE

5 EVENT OF DISABILITY TO TIMELY PROVIDE

6 SUCH BENEFITS.

7 Section 514(b) of the Employee Retirement Income

8 Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1144(b)) is amended—

9 (1) by redesignating paragraph (9) as para10 graph (10); and

11 (2) by inserting after paragraph (8) the fol12 lowing new paragraph:

13 ‘‘(9) Subsection (a) shall not be construed to pre14 clude, in the case of an employee welfare benefit plan pro15 viding benefits in the event of disability, any cause of ac16 tion in tort under State law to recover damages arising

17 from the failure of such plan to timely provide such bene18 fits.’’.

19 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

20 The amendments made by this Act shall apply with

21 respect to failures occurring on or after the date of the

22 enactment of this Act.

Æ
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed May 13, 2013. 

# S

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 12

- 01436

- CV

HYACINTH ANYANYA, IN DIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A ALL SAINTS HOMECARE MEDICAL SUPPLY , Appellant
V. SHOPRIDER MOBILITY P RODUCTS, INC. , Appellee

On Appeal from the C ounty Court at Law No. 3 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC

- 11

- 05000

- C

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices FitzGerald, Murphy, and Lewis Opinion by Just ice Murphy Before the Court is appellee’s May 3, 2013 motion to dismiss the appeal. Appellee
contends the appeal should be dismissed because appellant has failed to file her brief.
By postcard notice dated March 5, 2013, the Court informed appellant that her brief was
past due and instructed her to file her brief along with an extension motion within ten days. The
Court cautioned appellant that failure to file her brief with an extension motion within the time
specified would result in dismissal of the ap peal.
As of today’s date, appellant has not filed her brief. Accordingly, we grant appellee’s
motion and dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a)(1) & 42.3(b).

121436F.P05 /Mary Murphy/ MARY MURPHY JUSTICE– 2

– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

HYACINTH ANYANYA,
INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A
ALL SAINTS HOMECARE MEDICAL SUPPLY, Appellant

No. 05

- 12

- 01436

- CV V.

SHOPRIDER MOBILITY PRODUCTS, INC., Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3, Dal las County, Texas. Trial Court Cause No. CC

- 11

- 05000

- C. Opinion delivered by Justice Murphy. Justices FitzGerald and Lewis, participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

.

It is ORDERED that appellee, SHOPRIDER MOBILITY PRODUCTS, INC., recover its costs of this appeal from appellant, HYACINTH ANYANYA, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A ALL SAINTS HOMECARE MEDICAL SUPPLY.

Judgment entered this 13 th day of May, 2013.

/Mary Murphy/
MARY MURPHY
JU STICE
**EXHIBIT 35.1**

 

**SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**

**New Holland Credit Company, LLC**

 

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer ofNew Holland Credit Company, LLC (“NHCC”), as Servicer pursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of September 1,2018 (as amended from time to time, the “Sale and Servicing Agreement”) by and among NHCC, CNH Capital Receivables LLC andCNH Equipment Trust 2018-B, does hereby certify that:

 

1.             NHCC is Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement.

 

2.            The undersigned is duly authorized as required pursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement to execute and deliver this Certificate tothe Indenture Trustee.

 

3.             This Certificate is delivered pursuant to Section 4.9(a) of the Sale and Servicing Agreement and Item 1123 of Regulation AB.

 

4.             A review of the Servicer’s activities during the 12 month period ending (and including) December 31, 2021 and of its performanceunder the Sale and Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision.

 

5.             To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreementin all material respects throughout the 12 month period ending (and including) December 31, 2021.

 

6.             IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 30th day of March, 2022.

 

 

 

March 30, 2022
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Enzo Stagno, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Nelson, J.), rendered November 22, 1988, convicting him of conspiracy in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress evidence obtained as a result of eavesdropping warrants.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

On appeal, the defendant raises the same issues as were addressed on the appeal of his codefendant *(see, People v Sica,*163 AD2d 541 [decided herewith]), and we find no basis to reach a different result on this appeal. Kunzeman, J. P., Rubin, Fiber and Miller, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.7



June 2, 1997

Mr. James E. Roos
5512 Ash Creek Lane
Plano, Texas  75093

Dear Jim:

I am very pleased that you and I have reached agreement on your joining
Candlewood Hotel Company as our President. To outline the major issues of our
agreement, the following is written:

Salary                           $165,000 per year
Options                           100,000: priced on the day of your
                                         joining the company
Signing bonus                    $25,000 guaranteed
Additional bonus                 $25,000 if the company meets the 1997 budget
                                         which was presented to the Board at the
                                         last meeting
Relocation                       $68,675 to be paid during the first week of
                                         your employment

SEPARATION AGREEMENT - In the event the company is sold in the first 24 months
of your employment and, as a result of such sale, your job is eliminated, you
will receive a separation payment of $200,000.

It is my understanding that you will inform your present employer of your desire
to make a change on Wednesday of this week and that your intention is to join
the company on June 16. Jim, I am very aware of your commitment to your present
company and I certainly will understand if this date moves because of their
desire for you to make a transition easier for them.

I believe this covers our discussions and I am very excited to welcome you to
Candlewood. Jim, we are keeping this confidential until such time as you tell me
you have informed your present employer. Then I think we should go ahead and
make the public announcement. Let's be in touch.

Yours truly,


Jack P. DeBoer
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
#### McCASKEY REGISTER CO. v. LUMPKIN et al.

No. 2113.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

July 24, 1940.

For former opinion, see 195 So. 852.

Benj. W. Miller, of Bogalusa, and Ott & Johnson, of Franklinton, for appellant.

Talley & Richardson, of Bogalusa, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The opinion in this case was handed down on May 8, 1940, and registered notice of the opinion and decree was sent out to Hon. Benj. W. Miller, one of the attorneys of record for the defendants, on May 9, 1940, and it is shown by a post office return receipt in the record that the registered letter containing said notice was delivered on May 10, 1940, the return receipt being signed by Benj. W. Miller by “Oneita R.” as agent for the addressee.

The application for a rehearing was not filed with the Clerk of this Court until July 25, 1940, manifestly and admittedly too late, if the receipt and signature of the registered notice above stated should be deemed binding on the attorneys for defendants. An affidavit is attached to the application by the attorneys to the effect that none of said attorneys received notice of said opinion and decree on the date of the registry receipt, and knew noth*641ing thereof until May 21, 1940, when according to an affidavit by Mr. Miller, he learned of the notice of judgment for the first time in a letter from the Clerk of this Court advising him of the manner in which said receipt was signed.

It does not appear from the affidavit of Mr. Miller that “Oneita R.” was not authorized to receive and receipt for mail registered and otherwise addressed to him. In the absence of a showing to the effect that the person who signed the registered notice for Mr. Miller was not authorized to sign as his agent, we must assume that the post office department delivered the registered letter to an agent of the addressee authorized to receive and sign for said letter.

Section 24 of Art. *7*of the Constitution requires that notice of all judgments rendered by the Courts of Appeal shall be given to Counsel of record in accordance with such rules as may he fixed by the Court, and no delays shall run until such notice is given. While this Court has not fixed any rule as to the method of giving such notice, the practice of giving such notice by registered letter addressed to the attorneys of record has been followed for some time. We must therefore hold that a return receipt, signed by the addressee or his purported agent, will be received by this Court as evidence of the receipt of the said notice unless sufficient evidence is furnished to the effect that the agent signing for the addressee was not authorized to receive and receipt for the letter.

For these reasons, we must refuse to entertain the application as having been filed tao late.
#### The State, ex rel. Brophy et al., *v.*Crawford, Pros. Atty.

(No. 24313

Decided January 31, 1934.)

*Messrs. Denman, Miller & Beatty*and *Messrs. Matthews & Matthews,*for relators.

*Messrs. McGonnaughey, Shea, Denmann & McGonnaughey,*for respondent.

This cause came on to be heard upon the petition of relator, praying that a writ of mandamus issue compelling the respondent, as prosecuting attorney, to immediately make and prosecute an application to the Court of Appeals for leave to bring and prosecute an action in *quo warranto,*to try the right of relators’ title to offices of directors of a private corporation, to oust the incumbents therefrom, and to induct the relators into said offices; the answer of the prosecuting attorney, admitting that- a request to bring a proceeding in *quo warranto,*or file an application for leave therefor, was made by relators and refused by the respondent; and the reply thereto; and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof it is ordered and adjudged that a writ of mandamus be, and the same-hereby is, denied for the reasons:

(1) A writ of mandamus lies to compel the performance of a duty specifically enjoined by law and to compel an official to exercise discretion, but such writ will not lie to control discretion of an officer. *State, ex rel. Methodist Children’s Home Assn. of Worthington,*v. *Board of Edn. of Worthington Village School Dist.,*105 Ohio St., 438.

*581(2) Section 12306, General Code, is directory and not mandatory investing the prosecuting attorney with authority to institute *quo warranto,*and

(3) The respondent, under the pleadings, has exercised his discretion and refused to institute the requested proceeding in *quo warranto.*

*Writ denied.*

Weygandt, C. J., Allen, Stephenson, Jones, Matthias, Bevis and Zimmerman, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 32.2

                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                            18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350*


In connection with the Quarterly Report of PGI Incorporated (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Laurence A.
Schiffer, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:


(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.



/s/ Laurence A. Schiffer
---------------------------------------------------------
    Laurence A. Schiffer
    Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)      August 14, 2009


<FN>
*A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company
 and will be retained by the Company and will be furnished to the Securities
 and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 189 (Monday, September 29, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 56473]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21518]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0339; Airspace Docket No. 08-ASW-5]


Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Altus AFB, OK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule; change of effective date; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This action changes the effective date and makes a correction 
to the direct final rule that amends Class D and Class E airspace at 
Altus AFB, OK, published in the Federal Register August 6, 2008 (73 FR 
45605) Docket No. FAA-2008-0339. The effective date is changed to 
November 20, 2008, to allow additional time for charting. This action 
also makes a correction to the geographic coordinates of Altus AFB.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, November 20, 2008. The Director of the 
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 
Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual 
revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Mallett, Central Service Center, 
System Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest 
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76193-0530; telephone (817) 
222-4949.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    The FAA published a direct final rule with request for comments in 
the Federal Register August 6, 2008, (73 FR 45605), Docket No. FAA-
2008-0339. Subsequent to publication, the FAA found that additional 
time was needed for charting. The effective date is changed to November 
20, 2008, to allow additional time for charting. Also, there is a minor 
correction to the coordinates for the latitude/longitude of Altus AFB, 
OK.

Correction

0
In the Federal Register dated August 6, 2008, in Federal Register 
Docket No. FAA-2008-0339, the geographical coordinates of Altus AFB, OK 
are corrected to read:

Altus AFB, OK
    (Lat. 34[deg]39[min]59[sec] N., long. 99[deg]16[min]05[sec] W)

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
* * * * *

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on September 9, 2008.
Donald R. Smith,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. E8-21518 Filed 9-26-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P