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

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

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

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

The Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly, United States District Judge for ***

the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SVETLANA DMITREEVNA

CHERNOMORETS and VERA

VASILEVNA DOLGOVA,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-70862

Agency Nos. A097-112-671

A097-112-672

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 4, 2013** 

Pasadena, California

Before: PAEZ and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and KENNELLY, District

Judge.*** 

FILED

MAR 08 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

Based on an adverse credibility finding, the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied

Petitioners’ claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against

Torture protection. The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) upheld the IJ’s

decision and dismissed Petitioners’ appeal. Petitioners, a mother and daughter,

now petition for review from the BIA’s decision.

The evidence does not compel this Court to overturn the adverse credibility

determination. See Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 920 (9th Cir. 2006). 

That determination rested on a combination of several pieces of evidence the IJ and

BIA were entitled to credit, including: (1) the mother’s failure to seek asylum

during any of her three prior trips to the United States (which post-dated at least

some of the alleged persecution); (2) Petitioners’ submission of birth documents

that the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) determined to be fraudulent;

and (3) a DHS report indicating that newly issued Russian birth records may not

contain reliable information regarding ethnicity because individuals can and do

have this information changed in order to pursue asylum. Yeimane-Berhe v.

Ashcroft, 393 F.3d 907 (9th Cir. 2004), and Kourski v. Ashcroft, 355 F.3d 1038

(7th Cir. 2004), are distinguishable for the reasons given by the BIA. 

The record refutes Petitioners’ assertion that they were not afforded notice of

or an opportunity to respond to the IJ’s concerns about their credibility. Petitioners
3

in fact objected to the admission of the government’s pertinent exhibits; the IJ

noted on the record that Petitioners’ documents might exemplify the type of fraud

the DHS report discussed; and Petitioners cross-examined the forensics expert who

determined their documents were fake. Moreover, contrary to Petitioners’

assertion, the BIA did pass judgment on this argument, rejecting it for the reasons

just given. 

Finally, the IJ did not err in failing to discuss other documents Petitioners

offered, which did not bear on the dispositive issue of whether Petitioners suffered

persecution because they were Jewish.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 92 (Wednesday, June 7, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5626]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                      SEX TRAFFICKING IN THAILAND

  (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to address the House 
for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge all my colleagues to 
support my resolution to demand that our Government work to stop the 
sex trafficking and forced prostitution of women and girls from Burma 
into Thailand. I am pleased that my colleague from Washington, Senator 
Murray, has introduced this same bill in the Senate.
  I was appalled and disgusted to discover that the Government of 
Thailand has permitted the trafficking of women of brothels. Credible 
reports have indicated that thousands of Burmese women and girls, as 
young as 14, are being led into Thailand with false promises of 
employment, only to be forced to work in brothels under conditions 
which include sexual and physical violence, debt bondage, exposure to 
HIV, passport deprivation, and illegal confinement. In addition, 
members of the Thai police are often actively involved.
  And now we read in our own New York Times, that Thai women are being 
brought to the United States for the same purpose. This is a practice 
the U.S. Government must not support and we must work to stop it, 
before it becomes a practice quietly condoned and supported worldwide.
  As we debate the foreign aid budget, we must remember the gross human 
rights violations which occur against women, and we must remember we 
have a moral duty to pay attention. We have ignored it for too long. 
This is an issue of fundamental human rights.

                          ____________________
```
##### 



Exhibit 32.02
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ENACTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ Lizabeth H. ZlatkusName:
    
    Lizabeth H. ZlatkusTitle:
    
    Executive Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerDate:
    
    February 24, 2006
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 83 (Thursday, May 18, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S6947]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                    RECESS UNTIL 8:45 A.M. TOMORROW

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to report that I lost the 
negotiation and, therefore, if there is no further business to come 
before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in 
recess under the previous order.
  There being no objection, the Senate, at 10 p.m., recessed until 
Friday, May 19, 1995, at 8:45 a.m. 

```
##### 



Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Viewpoint Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we,
Jay S. Amato and William H. Mitchell, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer, respectively, of the Company, certify, pursuant to18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to our knowledge:

(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.

|                       |  |     |  |                                                    |  | 
|---------------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|Dated: August 14, 2003 |  | By: |  | /s/ JAY S. AMATO                                   |  | 
|                       |  |     |  |                                                    |  | 
|                       |  |     |  | Jay S. Amato
President and Chief Executive Officer |  | 
|                       |  |     |  |                                                    |  | 
|Dated: August 14, 2003 |  | By: |  | /s/ WILLIAM H. MITCHELL                            |  | 
|                       |  |     |  |                                                    |  | 
|                       |  |     |  | William H.
Mitchell
Chief Financial Officer        |  |
417 A.2d 712

#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Stephen BASS, Appellant.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted March 23, 1979.

Filed Jan. 4, 1980.

*406John W. Packel, Assistant Public Defender, Chief-Appeals Division, Philadelphia, for appellant.

Eric B. Henson, Assistant District Attorney, Philadelphia, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before CERCONE, President Judge, and WATKINS and HOFFMAN, JJ.

HOFFMAN, Judge:

Appellant contends that: 1) the trial court improperly revoked probation for an alleged violation that occurred after expiration of the term of probation; 2) the notice he received of the alleged basis for revocation of probation did not satisfy constitutional standards; 3) his sentence is invalid because the sentencing court relied in part upon an improper consideration; and 4) trial counsel was ineffective. We remand for appointment of new counsel.

In this appeal, appellant is represented by counsel from the same public defender’s office which provided counsel for him in the probation revocation proceedings. Therefore, without deciding any of the issues raised, we remand to the trial court for appointment of new counsel, not associated with the Defender Association of Philadelphia, to represent appellant on the issue of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and any other issue preserved for review and not finally litigated. See *Commonwealth v. Patrick, 477*Pa. 284, 383 A.2d 935 (1978); *Commonwealth*v. *Bergdahl,*264 Pa.Super. 520, 400 A.2d 207 (1979).
News United States Air Force
 Around the Air Force: Aug. 16Published Aug. 16, 2016
                        
                        By Air Force TV
                
                **FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS)**-- In this look around the Air Force, the KC-46A Pegasus has been approved for production, the Air Force is looking to create new F-16 Fighting Falcon training squadrons, and enlisted Airmen pursue medical degrees through the Enlisted to Medical Degree Preparatory Program. Hosted by Staff Sgt. Traci Keller.
For previous episodes, click here for the Air Force TV page.
Related links:
- KC-46A approved for production
- AF releases criteria for basing new F-16 training squadrons
- Intent to apply for AF enlisted medical degree preparatory program due Oct. 7KC-46 



Pegasus 



G-16 



training 



medical 



Enlisted to Medical Degree Preparatory Program 



ATAF
#### INTERNATIONAL SPRING MFG. CO., Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee.

Customs Appeal No. 80-37.

United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.

Feb. 19, 1981.

Doherty & Melahn, Boston, Mass., attorneys for appellant.

Alice Daniel,- Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D. C., David M. Cohen, New York City, Director, Joseph I. Liebman, Attorney in charge, Robert H. White, New York City, of counsel, for appellee.

Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, RICH, BALDWIN, MILLER, and NIES, Associate Judges.

NIES, Judge.

This appeal is from the judgment of the United States Customs Court (hereinafter the United States Court of International Trade), 496 F.Supp. 279, 85 Cust.Ct. -, C.D. 4862, sustaining the classification of leaf springs suitable for use on various *876kinds of non self-propelled trailers as other springs under item 652.88 rather than as springs suitable for motor vehicle suspension under item 652.84.1 We affirm.

OPINION

We agree with the decision of the Court of International Trade that the non self-propelled trailers for which the imported springs are suitable are not “motor vehicles” within the meaning of item 652.84. Accordingly, we *affirm*the judgment of the court and adopt the opinion below as our own.

1

. The relevant provisions of the TSUS read:

> Schedule 6, Part 3, Subpart F. - Miscellaneous Metal Products

> Springs and leaves for springs, of base metal:

> [Claimed]

> 652.84 Suitable for motor vehicle

> suspension .......... 4% ad val.

> [Classified]

> 652.88 Other................. 9-5% ad val.
News United States Air Force
 Singaporean leaders visit, recognize first weapons instructorsPublished Aug. 24, 2016
                        
                        By Airman 1st Class Chester Mientkiewicz
                        
                        
                        366th Fighter Wing Public Affairs
                **MOUNTAIN HOME AIR FORCE BASE, Idaho (AFNS) --**
                The 366th Fighter Wing welcomed Singaporean Maj. Gen. Mervyn Tan, chief of Republic of Singapore Air Force, and Brig. Gen. Tommy Tan Ah Han, Republic of Singapore Air Force Air Combat Command commander, Aug. 17-20, to recognize the first graduates of the Singaporean Fighter Weapons Instructor Course here. The Republic of Singapore Air Force leaders met with 366th Fighter Wing leaders and experienced a mission immersion into the working relationship between the Singaporean 428th Fighter Squadron and the rest of the base. "They say 'It takes a village to raise an Olympic champion' but in this instance it took two air forces to graduate these three airmen," said Lt. Col. Tham Yeow Min, the 428th FS senior ranking officer.The graduation recognized F-15SG pilot Maj. Wang Kee Yong and weapons systems officers Capts. Alex Ong and Chia Chi Yu. The course is modeled after the U.S. Air Force Fighter Weapons School. The course teaches Republic of Singapore Air Force aircrew advanced combat maneuvers and tactics."It is exciting to be a part of this program and to be able to contribute back to the (Republic of Singapore Air Force) international community," Chia said.The Republic of Singapore and U.S. Air Forces have a partnership dating back to 2009 known as Peace Carvin V, which allows both countries to train as partner nations at Mountain Home Air Force Base.This course enhances not only the Republic of Singapore Air Force’s combat readiness but the U.S. Air Force as well. The 428th FS look to continue this course in the future."I would like to thank (U.S. Air Force) and its instructors for their role in leading these airmen to graduation," Tham said. "This is a huge accomplishment for these individuals and our countries."joint 



coalition 



Mountain Home AFB 



ACC 



training 



Singapore
Pickering 

J. 

CL..U.- —[ J. 

Parraguirre 

not under a sentence of death or imprisonment as required by NRS 34.724. 

See Coleman v. State, 130 Nev. „ 321 P.3d 863, 867 (2014). 

Therefore, because Romero did not meet the imprisonment requirement of 

NRS 34.724, he was not eligible for post-conviction habeas relief. See id. 

For this reason, we affirm the decision of the district court to deny the 

petition. 2Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

J. 

Saitta 

cc: Hon. Valerie Adair, District Judge 

Turco & Draskovich 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

2Although the district court incorrectly addressed the procedural 

bars and merits of the claims, we nevertheless affirm because the district 

court reached the correct result in denying the petition. See Wyatt v. 

State, 86 Nev. 294, 298, 468 P.2d 338, 341 (1970) (holding that a correct 

result will not be reversed simply because it is based on the wrong reason). 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

03) 1947A e
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1112 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide individuals relief 

from the alternative minimum tax. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 16, 2007 

Mr. REYNOLDS (for himself, Mr. HERGER, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. 

ENGLISH of Pennsylvania, Mr. WELLER of Illinois, Mr. CANTOR, Mr. 

LINDER, Mr. TIBERI, Mr. KING of New York, Mr. WALSH of New York, 

Mr. MCHUGH, Mr. FOSSELLA, Mr. KUHL of New York, Mrs. MYRICK, 

Mr. ROYCE, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. LOBIONDO, Mr. 

CULBERSON, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. TERRY, Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART

of Florida, Mr. WALDEN of Oregon, Mrs. CAPITO, Mrs. DRAKE, Mrs. 

BONO, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN, Mr. 

NEUGEBAUER, Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey, Mr. WALBERG, Mrs. 

BIGGERT, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, and Mr. BILIRAKIS) 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 provide 

individuals relief from the alternative minimum tax. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Stealth Tax Relief Ex5 tension Act of 2007’’. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1112 IH

1 SEC. 2. INCREASE IN ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX EXEMP2 TION AMOUNT FOR 2007. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 55(d)(1) of the Internal 

4 Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to exemption amount for 

5 taxpayers other than corporations) is amended— 

6 (1) by striking ‘‘$62,550 in the case of taxable 

7 years beginning in 2006’’ in subparagraph (A) and 

8 inserting ‘‘$66,400 in the case of taxable years be9 ginning in 2007’’, and 

10 (2) by striking ‘‘$42,500 in the case of taxable 

11 years beginning in 2006’’ in subparagraph (B) and 

12 inserting ‘‘$45,100 in the case of taxable years be13 ginning in 2007’’. 

14 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

15 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

16 December 31, 2006. 

17 SEC. 3. ALLOWANCE OF NONREFUNDABLE PERSONAL 

18 CREDITS AGAINST REGULAR AND ALTER19 NATIVE MINIMUM TAX LIABILITY. 

20 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section 26(a) of 

21 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended— 

22 (1) by striking ‘‘2006’’ in the heading thereof 

23 and inserting ‘‘2007’’, and 

24 (2) by striking ‘‘or 2006’’ and inserting ‘‘2006, 

25 or 2007’’. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
3 

•HR 1112 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

3 December 31, 2006. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND
AS OF JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                    0000919602
<NAME> HELSINKI CAPITAL PARTNERS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                    1
<CURRENCY>                      US dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Mar-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 Apr-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   Jun-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          561
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1,246
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,807)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   0
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  15
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (15)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (15)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (15)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.00)
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1100 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 1100

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 24, 2007

   Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To revise the boundary of the Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site 
        in the State of North Carolina, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Carl Sandburg Home National Historic 
Site Boundary Revision Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

    For the purposes of this Act:
            (1) Map.--The term ``map'' means the map entitled 
        ``Sandburg Center Alternative'' numbered 445/80,017 and dated 
        April 2007.
            (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
        of the Interior.
            (3) Historic site.--The term ``Historic Site'' means Carl 
        Sandburg Home National Historic Site.

SEC. 3. CARL SANDBURG HOME NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT.

    (a) Acquisition Authority.--The Secretary may acquire from willing 
sellers by donation, purchase with donated or appropriated funds, or 
exchange not more than 110 acres of land, water, or interests in land 
and water, within the area depicted on the map, to be added to the 
Historic Site.
    (b) Visitor Center.--To preserve the historic character and 
landscape of the site, the Secretary may also acquire up to five acres 
for the development of a visitor center and visitor parking area 
adjacent to or in the general vicinity of the Historic Site.
    (c) Boundary Revision.--Upon acquisition of any land or interest in 
land under this section, the Secretary shall revise the boundary of the 
Historic Site to reflect the acquisition.
    (d) Availability of Map.--The map shall be on file and available 
for public inspection in the appropriate offices of the National Park 
Service.
    (e) Administration.--Land added to the Historic Site by this 
section shall be administered as part of the Historic Site in 
accordance with applicable laws and regulations.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 23, 2007.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```