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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PATRICK ANTHONY PRINCE, AKA

Nkomo Mugabe Levene, AKA Tafari

Williams,

Petitioner,

 v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney

General,

Respondent.

No. 15-73652

Agency No. A076-022-830

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted June 14, 2018

San Francisco, California

Before: SCHROEDER and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and DU,** District Judge.

 

Petitioner Patrick Anthony Prince, a native and citizen of Jamaica, petitions

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order affirming the

FILED

JUN 29 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The Honorable Miranda M. Du, United States District Judge for the

District of Nevada, sitting by designation.
Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision denying his applications for withholding of

removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Our

appellate jurisdiction rests on 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we deny the petition. 

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Petitioner has failed

to establish a nexus between the harm he suffered and a protected ground. See

Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 358–60 (9th Cir. 2017); Sangha v. I.N.S.,

103 F.3d 1482, 1486–87 (9th Cir. 1997). Petitioner argues he was, and will

continue to be, subject to persecution because of his father’s support for Michael

Manley and the People’s National Party (PNP). But Petitioner offered little detail

about his father’s political support, and the only evidence in the record

documenting his father’s activities in Jamaica described his involvement in a

bloody gang dispute dating back decades. The record does not compel the

conclusion that Petitioner’s imputed political opinion was a reason for the harm he

suffered. See Barajas-Romero, 846 F.3d at 360. Petitioner has similarly failed to

show that he would be threatened in the future because of an imputed political

opinion. 

Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s conclusion that Petitioner has

failed to show a likelihood of future torture carried out or acquiesced in by

Jamaican officials. Petitioner acknowledged that police shot his brother believing

2
he was a thief, and he testified that his half-brother was accidentally killed by the

police when they were chasing after someone else. Petitioner further testified that

in most of his own encounters with violent attackers he was unable to identify the

perpetrators and declined to report the events to the police. Petitioner has failed to 

show that he would be tortured upon return or that the police would be “unable or

unwilling” to oppose any future attacks. See Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d

1026, 1034 (9th Cir. 2014). 

PETITION DENIED. 

3
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**

 

In connection with the Annual Report ofShuffle Master, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the periodended October 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mark L. Yoseloff,Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant tosection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.section 1350), that to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 
| Date: July 8, 2008                             |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                |   |
| /s/ MARK L. YOSELOFF                                |   |
| Mark L. Yoseloff                                    |   |
| *Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer* |   |

 

48

----
#### Shanado Phillips, Respondent, v Sinba Associates, L.P., et al., Appellants. (And a Third-Party Action.) (Action No. 1.) Sean Thomas, Respondent, v Sinba Associates, L.P., Appellant, et al., Defendant. (Action No. 2.)

[745 NYS2d 447]

In two related actions to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants in Action No. 1, and the defendant Sinba Associates, L.P., in Action No. 2, appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gigante, J.), dated May 16, 2001, which denied their joint motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in Action No. 1 and for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in Action No. 2 insofar as asserted against Sinba Associates, L.P.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint in Action No. 1 is dismissed, the complaint in Action No. 2 is dismissed insofar as asserted against the defendant Sinba Associates, L.P., and Action No. 2 is severed as against the defendant Tilden Ballroom Catering Services, Inc.

“It is well settled that an out-of-possession owner or lessor is not liable for injuries that occur on the premises unless the owner or lessor has retained control over the premises or is contractually obligated to repair or maintain the premises” *(Dalzell v McDonald’s Corp.,*220 AD2d 638, 639). On their motion for summary judgment, the out-of-possession landlords established that their contractual duty to make structural repairs, and their limited right of reentry, did not amount to a sufficient degree of control over the premises and the lessee’s business operations to permit the imposition of liability against them for failure to provide adequate security *(see Zaglas v Gironda,*266 AD2d 282, 283; *Baker v Getty Oil Co.,*242 AD2d 644, 645; *Gilbert v 4905 Ave. D Realty,*224 AD2d 659). Therefore,, the movants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Thus, the landlords are entitled to summary judgment.

In light of the foregoing, we need not reach the parties’ remaining contentions. Florio, J.P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Crane, JJ., concur.
#### Josephine Kronenbitter, Plaintiff, v. Washburn Wire Company et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Bronx County,

February 13, 1957.

*Abraham Kantor*for plaintiff.

*Sidney A. Schwarts*and *Joseph Arthur Cohen*for defendants.

Matthew M. Levy, J.

It may well be that — in these enlightened times of legal equality between the sexes, and the recognized matrimonial and biological fact that the plaintiff’s loss of an injured spouse’s society may be felt as keenly by the plaintiff in a case where the mate is a male as where the spouse is a female — there is “no logic to the contention that a husband may sue for loss of consortium, but a wife may not where the injury caused by the third party is merely the result of negligence.” (Colden, J., in *Passalacqua*v. *Draper,*199 Misc. 827, 830.) And it seems to be the recent trend in a number of other jurisdictions to acknowledge the anachronism of the earlier view *(Hitaffer*v. *Argonne Co.,*183 F. 2d 811, cert, denied 340 U. S. 852; *Acuff*v. *Schmit,*78 N. W. 2d 480 [Iowa]; *962
      *Brown*v. *Georgia-Tennessee Coaches,*88 Ga. App. 519; cf. *McDade*v. *West,*80 Ga. App. 481). Indeed, I would be inclined to follow that trend were it an open question for this court, notwithstanding that I am aware that in a substantial majority of the States the wife would be denied recovery of damages in such case (see cases cited in 23 A. L. R. 2d 1378,1385,1389-1397 ; and also *Seymour*v. *Union News Co.,*217 F. 2d 168; *Filice*v. *United States,*217 F. 2d 515; *Nickel*v. *Hardware Mut. Cas. Co.,*269 Wis. 647).

But Judge Golden’s views were not approved by the Appellate Division in his department (279 App. Div. 660), and, more definitive, the issue was resolved for this State by the Court of Appeals in *Landwehr*v. *Barbas*(270 N. Y. 537) and in *Don*v. *Benjamin M. Knapp, Inc. (306 N.*Y. 675). In the circumstances, if change of rule there is to be, it must be pronounced for me by the Court of Appeals (cf. *Woods*v. *Lancet,*303 N. Y. 349) or be enacted for me by the Legislature (Sen. Int. No. 908, Pr. No. 937, Kraf, Senator [1957 Sess.]).

This motion by defendant to dismiss the complaint for insufficiency must be, and is, therefore, granted. Settle order directing the entry of judgment accordingly.
|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/ Richard E.      Gathright                                     |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Richard      E. Gathright                                         |
| Chairman      of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President |
| (Principal      Executive Officer)                                |
| February      17, 2009                                            |
|                                                              |
| /s/ Michael S. Shore                                              |
| Michael      S. Shore                                             |
| Chief      Financial Officer, Treasurer and Senior Vice President |
| (Principal Financial Officer)                                     |
| February      17, 2009                                            |

----
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.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration 

          - [TA-W-63,960] 

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on August 29, 2008 in response to a worker petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers at Peoploungers, Inc., Mantachie, Mississippi. 

The petitioning group of workers is covered by an active certification (TA-W-62,583A, amended), which expires on September 23, 2010. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated. 

Signed at Washington, DC this 24th day of September 2008. 

Linda G. Poole, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E8-23294 Filed 10-2-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ) ASSOCIATION, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-4082 ) DAVID A. LYNCH and NOELLE ) LYNCH, ) ) Appellees. ) ) ) Opinion filed October 19, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Cheryl K. Thomas Judge. Kansas R. Gooden of Boyd & Jenerette, P.A., Jacksonville; and Daniel A. Martinez and Weslee Ferron of Martinez Denbo, LLC, St. Petersburg, for Appellant. Brent G. Steinberg, Brandon G. Cathey, Stephanie Miles, and Dale Swope of Swope, Rodante P.A., Tampa, for Appellees. PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.- 2 -

KHOUZAM, MORRIS, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
[No. 34190.

*En Banc.*

June 26, 1958.]

#### Angela Best, *Individually and as Guardian ad Litem of Mary E. Nelson, a Minor, Respondent,*v. Kathleen Jean Dakin, *Appellant.**1*

*Edwin R. Johnson,*for appellant.

*Carnahan, Gordon & Goodwin,*for respondent.

1

Reported in 326 P. (2d) 1009.

Per Curiam.

One of the judges of this court being disqualified, this case was argued to the remaining eight judges sitting *En Banc.*These eight judges are divided in their opinions, and there is no majority either for affirmance or for reversal. Therefore, the judgment of the lower court stands affirmed.

August 5, 1958. Petition for rehearing denied.
#### John Junior WATKINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division B.

Feb. 4, 1955.

Amos Hudson, Chipley, for appellant.

Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and Bart L. Cohen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, John Junior Watkins, was tried and found guilty of assault with in*796tent to rape. A motion for new trial was denied.

The State concedes that the evidence is completely insufficient to show that the appellant had the requisite intent to rape. The case is controlled by Rye v. State, 153 Fla. 559, 15 So.2d 255. It follows that the judgment must be, and it is hereby, reversed for further proceedings not inconsistent with law, and without prejudice to prosecution for violation of Section 800.04, Florida Statutes, 1953, F.S.A.

It is so ordered.

MATHEWS, C. J., and THOMAS,

■HOBSON and DREW, JJ., concur.
58188 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Notices 

[FR Doc. E8–23351 Filed 10–3–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–C 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Transmittal Nos. 08–72] 

36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification 

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense 

Security Cooperation Agency. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is 

publishing the unclassified text of a 

section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. 

This is published to fulfill the 

requirements of section 155 of Public 

Law 104–164 dated 21 July 1996. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601– 

3740. 

The following is a copy of a letter to 

the Speaker of the House of 

Representatives, Transmittals 08–72 

with attached transmittal, policy 

justification, and Sensitivity of 

Technology. 

Dated: September 25, 2008. 

Patricia L. Toppings, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, 

Department of Defense. 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–M 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Notices 58189 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICESEN06OC08.051</GPH>
58190 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Notices 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICESEN06OC08.052</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Notices 58191 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICESEN06OC08.053</GPH>
58192 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Notices 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICESEN06OC08.054</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Notices 58193 

[FR Doc. E8–23352 Filed 10–3–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–C 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Transmittal Nos. 08–75] 

36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification 

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense 

Security Cooperation Agency. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is 

publishing the unclassified text of a 

section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. 

This is published to fulfill the 

requirements of section 155 of Public 

Law 104–164 dated 21 July 1996. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

B. English, DSCAIDBO/CFM, (703) 601– 

3740. 

The following is a copy of a letter to 

the Speaker of the House of 

Representatives, Transmittals 08–75 

with attached transmittal, policy 

justification, and Sensitivity of 

Technology. 

Dated: September 25, 2008. 

Patricia L. Toppings, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, 

Department of Defense. 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–M 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
#### In the Matter of the Estate of William H. Garrett, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, New York County,

December 28, 1956.

*209
      *Alan L. Dingle*and *Alvanteen E. Howard*for petitioner.

*Kenneth L. Shorter*for Ramona Garrett, respondent.

*Thomas G. Murray*for Ruby Garrett as administratrix of the estate of Morris Garrett, deceased, respondent.

George Frankenthaler, S.

Morris Garrett’s application to compel payment of funeral expenses was consolidated with this final accounting. Decedent’s widow and Morris Garrett object to the account which reflects the receipt and retention of assets valued at $293.75. In objections numbered 1 and 8 both object-ants complain of the failure of the executrix to account for certain items of personalty. These objections are disposed of as follows: The court holds that the Gilhead stock was given by the decedent to Minnie L. Lynch and is not an asset of the estate. The executrix testified that testator had a Leica camera and some fishing rods when he died and she has improperly failed to charge herself therewith. None of the other property mentioned in the objections was shown to have been decedent’s property or in his possession when he died. It is conceded, however, that $66.97, the balance of decedent’s account in the Chemical Corn Exchange Bank, which was omitted from the account, must be charged against petitioner. The ruling on the issue óf ownership of the Gilhead stock disposes of the objections numbered 2 to the failure to account for income therefrom.

Objections numbered Ninth were withdrawn. Mrs. Garrett’s right to the widow’s exemption under section 200 of the Surrogate’s Court Act is conceded and her objections numbered 6 and 7 are sustained to that extent. The other issues raised concern the reasonableness of the funeral bill of $1,269.95 paid by Morris Garrett who seeks reimbursement, claims for attorneys’ fees and for commissions. Setting off the widow’s exemption would consume all of the assets for which executrix is accountable, even after these are augmented by the camera, fishing rods and cash in accordance with this decision. In such a case the widow’s portion must, under subdivision 4 of section 200 of the Surrogate’s Court Act, first be applied to the payment of reasonable funeral expenses, which are held to be $500. Administration expenses are not so preferred and there is no need to fix attorneys’ fees or to allow commissions because there will be no assets available for their payment. These rulings dispose of objections numbered 3, 4, 5 and 10 of both objectants and of objections numbered 6 and 7 of Morris Garrett.

The executrix is directed to apply the assets required to be *210set apart for the widow, under subdivision 4 of section 200 of the Surrogate’s Court Act, toward reimbursement of the estate of Morris Garrett up to the sum of $500 *(Matter of Lewandowslci,*183 Misc. 668).

Submit decree on notice.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 16, 2009

l0909 

# Order

September 16, 2009

138549

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 138549 COA: 285678 Jackson CC: 07-003773-FH MATTHEW PATRICK MERCIER, Defendant-Appellant.

___________________ ________________
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 3, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

K ELLY 

### , C.J., and C AVANAGH 

### and M ARKMAN 

### , JJ., would grant leave to appeal.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of US Unwired Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004 (the Report), I, Robert W. Piper, President and 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 result of operations of the Company.



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Robert W. Piper                  
|Robert W. Piper                      
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|July 22, 2004