alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1969
ALEKSANDR J. STOYANOV; YURI J. STOYANOV, Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v. DONALD C. WINTER, Secretary of the Navy; GARY M. JEBSEN, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Head of Code 70, Carderock Division Naval Surface Warfare Center; JAMES H. KING, Individually and in his Official Capacity as the Head of Code 74, Carderock Division Naval Surface Warfare Center; JOHN C. DAVIES, Individually and in his Official Capacity as the Deputy Head of Code 74, Carderock Division Naval Surface Warfare Center; STEPHAN M. FARLEY, Individually and in his Official Capacity as the Head of Code 741, Carderock Division Naval Surface Warfare Center; DAVID CARON, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Assistant Counsel Code 39, Carderock Division Naval Surface Warfare Center, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:05-cv-01567-RDB)
Submitted: February 21, 2008 Decided: February 25, 2008
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.- 2 - Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Aleksandr J. Stoyanov, Yuri J. Stoyanov, Appellants Pro Se. John Walter Sippel, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 3 - PER CURIAM: Aleksandr J. Stoyanov and Yuri J. Stoyanov appeal the district court’s orders dismissing their claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 to 634 (2000), and the Whistleblower Protection Act, 5 U.S.C. § 2302 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Stoyanov v. Winter , No. 1:05-cv-01 567-RDB (D. Md. July 25, 2006; Aug. 15, 2007). We dispense with 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
News United States Air Force
 Bring safety homePublished April 23, 2020
                        
                        By Leslie Irwin
                        
                        
                        SAF/IEE
                **WASHINGTON (AFNS) --**
                As the nation moves to adapt and minimize the spread of the coronavirus 2019, the Department of the Air Force is prioritizing the health and safety of our Airmen and Space professionals, civilian personnel, and families. By encouraging prevention measures and making modifications to ensure all essential missions get off the ground, many now find themselves supporting the Air Force mission to ‘fly, fight, and win’ from a home office.
“Despite the inherent challenges that come with the reality of working from home,” said Maj. Gen. John T. Rauch Jr., Air Force chief of safety, “assuring the Air Force mission calls for sustaining a safe and productive work environment.”
This means that in addition to following strict personal hygiene, social distancing, staying home if sick, and self-quarantining if exposed to those with COVID-19 symptoms (coughing, fever, shortness of breath), ensuring safety throughout ones designated work space is a priority. An effective telework environment goes beyond best practices for staying productive on the job. From securing safe operation and storage of cords and electrical appliances to optimal ergonomic support at the workstation and reducing physical strain, the Air Force is also providing resources to promote and instill better safety habits for the home.
“Our air and space professionals are known for their innovation, determination, and resilience,” said Mark Correll, deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force for environment, safety and infrastructure. “I trust in their abilities to realize the Air Force mission through these complex times.”
As the Air Force continues to direct maximum telework, the Air Force Safety Center wants to make it easier. Starting April 27th and ending on May 1, the Safety Center will be sharing home safety knowledge and tips with the aim to inspire Airmen, space professionals and their families to employ the same safety measures they embrace at the office in their new home workspace.
Visit the **Safety Center's Home Safety page** for resources and follow the hashtag #BringSafetyHome on Twitter @AFSafety, Facebook @AFSafetyCenter and on the AFSEC YouTube channel.USAF 



AF 



Air Force 



Air Force Safety Center 



AFSEC 



COVID-19 



coronavirus 



Telework 



safety 



LR
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROSA Z. VASQUEZ DE QUINTERO, 

AKA Maria Rodriguez de Enriquez, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 20-70846 

Agency No. A039-099-987 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 8, 2021**

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges. 

Rosa Z. Vasquez De Quintero, a native and citizen of Colombia, petitions 

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her 

appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for 

deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

FILED

NOV 15 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 20-70846 

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process 

violations in immigration proceedings. Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 

(9th Cir. 2004). We deny the petition for review.

Vasquez De Quintero’s contention that the BIA violated her right to due 

process by declining to remand to the IJ for a new adverse credibility 

determination fails. See Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 

2014) (“To prevail on a due-process claim, a petitioner must demonstrate both a 

violation of rights and prejudice.”); see also Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133, 1137

(9th Cir. 2021) (en banc) (“in assessing an adverse credibility finding under the 

[REAL ID] Act, we must look to the ‘totality of the circumstances[ ] and all 

relevant factors.’ . . . . There is no bright-line rule under which some number of 

inconsistencies requires sustaining or rejecting an adverse credibility 

determination” (internal citation omitted)). In her opening brief, Vasquez De 

Quintero does not raise, and has therefore waived, any challenge to the remaining 

factors relied upon in the BIA’s adverse credibility determination, which are 

dispositive. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) 

(issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).

Vasquez De Quintero does not raise, and has therefore also waived, any 

challenge to the BIA’s denial of deferral of removal under CAT, and the BIA’s

conclusions as to the need for competency proceedings. See Lopez-Vasquez, 706 
3 20-70846 

F.3d at 1079-80.

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the 

mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JOHN HALL.

May 30, 1985.

Petition for certification denied.
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 Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1912-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2010-0002]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the Commonwealth of Kentucky (FEMA-1912-DR), dated May 11, 2010, and related determinations.

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         August 19, 2010.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peggy Miller, Recovery Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the                           ( print page 53978)                        Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Terry L. Quarles, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.                

This action terminates the appointment of Douglas G. Mayne as Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

W. Craig Fugate,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2010-21900 Filed 9-1-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
* 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

May 13, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-20554 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JONATHAN CHIMNEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-02-CR-362-1

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jonathan Ch imney pled guilty to a two-count indictment

charging him with conspiracy and possession of more than fifty

grams of cocaine base, commonly known as cr ack cocaine, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846. Chimney admitted to

possession of 53.7 grams of cocaine base. The PSR recommended a

base offen se level of 32, a two-level enhancement for Chimney’s1 See United States v. Chimney , 88 Fed. Appx. 777, 2004 WL 326764 (5th

Cir. Feb. 18, 2004) (unpublished).

2 See Newsome v. United States , 125 S.Ct. 1112 (2005).

3 United States v. Mares , --- F.3d ----, 2005 WL 503715, *7 (5th Cir. 2005).

2 aggravating role in the offen se as an organizer/leader, and a

three-level reduction for timely acceptance of responsibility,

producing in a total offense level of 31. The resulting guidelines

imprisonment range, after accounting for the statutory mandat ory

minimum sentence of ten years, was 120-135 months. The district

court imposed the maximum gui delines sentence of 135 months’

imprisonment. We affirmed. 1 The Supreme Court vacated our

judgment and remanded to us for further consideration in light of

United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. ----, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005). 2

Chimney argues that his sentence should be vacated in light of

Booker because the two-level enhancement was made on the basis of

disputed facts un der a mandatory guidelines system. Because

Chimney did not raise a Booker -type objection in the district

court, we review onl y for plain error. 3 As we recently described

in United States v. Mares

,

[a]n appellate court may not correct an error the defendant failed to raise in the district
court unless there is (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights. If all three conditions are met an appellate court may then exercise its discretion to notice a forfeited error but only if (4) the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of4 Id. at *8 (quoting United States v. Cotton , 535 U.S. 625, 631 (2002))

(internal quotation marks omitted).

5 Id . at *9.

3 judicial proceedings. 4

In the present case, the third prong has not been met.

C himney has not carried his “burden of demonstrating that the

result would have likely been different had the judge been

sent encing under the B ooker advisory regime rather than the

pre- Booker mandatory regime.” 5

AFFIRMED.
#### Gilbert Olgen SALAZAR et al., Appellants, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee. Terrance Wilson TURNEY et al., Appellants, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

Nos. 45724, 45725.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 25, 1972.

Edith P. Roberts, Austin, for appellants.

Robert O. Smith, Dist. Atty., and Michael J. McCormick, Asst. Dist. Atty., Austin, and Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

MORRISON, Judge.

These are appeals from judgments forfeiting bail bonds.

The parties to these causes through a joint motion, pray that they be reversed and remanded for the purpose of entering a compromise settlement.

Bond forfeiture appeals are governed by “the same rules that govern civil actions where an appeal is taken or a writ of error sued out”. Article 44.44, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P.; Reeves v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 465 S.W.2d 757.

*324A judgment of reversal will be entered when parties to a civil cause on appeal, through a joint motion, request that the cause be reversed for the purpose of entering an agreed judgment. Butler v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 481 S.W.2d 907, and the cases cited therein.

The judgments are reversed and the causes remanded to the 167th District Court of Travis County, and the clerk is directed to issue mandates immediately upon the announcement of this decision.
Exhibit 34.2




Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm (KPMG LLP)









Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm






The Board of Directors


The Trust & Securities Services department of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas:







We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying Management’s Assertion of Compliance, that the Trust & Securities Services department of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (collectively the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the Nissan Auto Receivables 2011-A Owner Trust asset-backed securities transaction (the “Platform”), except for servicing criteria 1122(d)(1)(i)-1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(i), 1122(d)(2)(iii), 1122(d)(2)(v)-1122(d)(2)(vii), 1122(d)(3)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(i)-1122(d)(4)(xv), which the Company has determined are not applicable to the activities it performs with respect to the Platform, as of and for the year ended March 31, 2015.  With respect to the Platform, servicing criterion 1122(d)(3)(ii) is applicable only as it relates to remittances.  Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion about the Company’s compliance based on our examination.
  Our examination was conducted in accordance with the attestation standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States)and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria specified above and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  Our examination included testing the asset-backed transaction and securities that comprise the Platform, testing selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed the transaction and performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria.  Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report.  Our procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the asset-backed transaction and securities that comprise the Platform.  We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.
  In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned servicing criteria, as of and for the year ended March 31, 2015, is fairly stated, in all material respects.











/s/ KPMG LLP




Chicago, Illinois


May 29, 2015
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF 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 Quarterly Report of Sports Resorts International, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Gregory T. Strzynski, 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:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

/s/ Gregory T. Strzynski

Gregory T. Strzynski
Chief Financial Officer
May 13, 2005
* After examining appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### January 3, 2008 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT

BOB ALLEN CUSTARD, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. HARLEY LAPPIN; HARRELL WATTS; R. WILEY; K. REAR; M. MONTGOMERY; J. T. SHARTLE; BENJAMIN BRIESCHKE; CHRISTOPHER B. SYNSVOLL; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; MARK COLLINS; W. HAYGOOD; R. MADISON, “Dolly”; B. HAYS; I. GARCIA; A. FENLON, Defendants - Appellees. No. 07-1371 (D.C. No. 07-cv-844-ZLW-BNB) (D. Colo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before LUCERO , HARTZ , and GORSUCH , Circuit Judges.- 2 - Based on our independent review of the record in this case, and for substantially the same reasons set forth by the district court, we affirm that court’s judgment. With the dismissal of his complaint as malicious under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), Mr. Custard has now earned at least three strikes under § 1915(g); accordingly, he may bring no more civil actions or appeals under § 1915 unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). We warn Mr. Custard that any future frivolous, malicious, or abusive filings will put him at the risk of sanctions, including possible filing restrictions.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Neil M. Gorsuch Circuit Judge
News United States Air Force
 Joint training strengthens Air Force, Army collaborationPublished Feb. 27, 2019
                        
                        By Tech. Sgt. Christopher Hubenthal
                        
                        
                        379th Air Expeditionary Wing Public Affairs
                **AL UDEID AIR BASE, Qatar (AFNS) --**
                Airmen and Soldiers practiced Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and high yield explosives training techniques and procedures Feb. 22, 2019, as part of a joint decontamination training event.
The event was the conclusion of a four phase curriculum. Participants from the 379th Expeditionary Civil Engineer Squadron and the1st Battalion, 43rd Air Defense Artillery regiment, 11th ADA Brigade, shared CBRNE best practices and tested their response proficiency during the training.
“The goal of this is to build a relationship to know our capabilities and to train together since we’re both doing the same kind of CBRNE mission,” said Master Sgt. Julia Dandurand, 379th ECES emergency management flight chief. “We have equipment that the Army doesn’t have, the Army has equipment that we don’t have, and this puts our equipment familiarization into practice out in the field.”
Airmen and Soldiers worked together during tasks including Mission Oriented Protective Posture donning and doffing drills, ground survey, and decontamination familiarization.
“The exercise is the culmination of everything we learned together,” said Staff Sgt. Karl Spindler, 379th ECES emergency management training NCO in charge. “Doing things like this, gearing up, (donning) the mask, going through surveys ... that’s my favorite part.”
The joint training provided both military branches an opportunity to share service specific processes. Airmen shared their experience in decontamination procedures and Soldiers showcased MOPP exchange techniques.
“I’m definitely walking away with more knowledge in the CBRNE area especially in decontamination,” said U.S. Army Spc. Riley Sharp, 1-43rd ADA patriot fire control enhanced operator and maintainer. “I’m definitely walking away with more friendships. I’m teaching people how to do their job better, they’re teaching me how to do my job better. That’s really what it comes down to.
“Joint training is definitely beneficial specifically to equipment and our tactical techniques and procedures,” said Dandurand. “We’re trying to become a joint force where our procedures are the same as theirs so we’re speaking the same language during a real-world situation. We’re all here for the same reason. The more we know about each of the services the better we can produce, the quicker we can work, the easier our job actually becomes.”AFCENT 



ARCENT 



379th Expeditionary Civil Engineer Squadron 



1st Battalion 



43rd Air Defense Artillery regiment 



Joint Training 



CBRNE 



AF 



Air Force