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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHRISTIAN CABRERA-SAMAYOA, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 19-70806 

Agency No. A205-599-995 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 3, 2020**

Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges. 

Christian Cabrera-Samayoa, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for 

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal 

from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, 

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 

Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in 

* 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

MAR 11 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 19-70806 

part the petition for review.

Cabrera-Samayoa does not make any arguments challenging the agency’s 

dispositive conclusion that his asylum application was untimely. See LopezVasquez 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). We do not consider 

Cabrera-Samayoa’s contentions as to the merits of his asylum claim because the 

BIA did not decide that issue. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 

829 (9th Cir. 2011) (review limited to the grounds relied on by the agency). Thus, 

we deny the petition for review as to asylum.

The agency denied withholding of removal because Cabrera-Samayoa failed 

to establish a nexus between his political opinion or particular social group. 

Cabrera-Samayoa does not challenge that determination. See Lopez-Vasquez, 706 

F.3d at 1079-80. Thus, we deny the petition for review as to withholding of 

removal.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Cabrera-Samayoa’s unexhausted contention 

that membership in his family constitutes a protected ground for purposes of 

withholding of removal. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 

2004).

To the extent Cabrera-Samayoa challenges the denial of CAT relief, we lack 

jurisdiction to consider these unexhausted contentions. See id. at 677-78. 
 3 19-70806 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                           16345
<SECURITIES>                                   2219310
<RECEIVABLES>                                    10948
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                335512
<PP&E>                                        14114012
<DEPRECIATION>                                 7812077
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 8884050
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           409784
<BONDS>                                        3774776
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     4699490
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   8884050
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               4798888
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  3548106
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              381692
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                2016845
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            2016845
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   2016845
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    67.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Flagship Homes, LTD. d/b/a s



# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Anto nio, Texas

August 15, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00568

- CV

Julian CALDERAS , Jr. and Erica Calderas,

Appellant s

v.

FLAGSHIP HOMES, LTD. d/b/a Prestige Homes,

Appellee

From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014

- CI

- 04 330 Honorable Martha B. Tanner, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The reporter’s record in this accelerated appeal was originally due July 8, 2014. This appeal, originally filed in this court, was transferred by the Texas Supreme Court to the First Court of Appeals in Houston, Texas. On August 8, 2014, the Texas Supreme Court transferred

th e appeal back to this court. The reporter’s record remains unfiled.

Ms. Yvonne O’Bar is the court reporter responsible for preparing, certifying, and fi ling the reporter’s record in this appeal. Ms. O’Bar is hereby ORDERED to file the record in this

court no later than August 25 , 2014

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.3(a)(1). If the record is not received by such date, a show cause order shall issue directing Ms. O’Bar t o appear on a day certain and show cause why she should not be held in contempt for failing to file the record. The clerk of this court shall cause a copy of this order to be served on Ms. O’Bar by certified mail, return receipt requested, and by regular United States mail.

Because the trial and appellate courts are jointly responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed, the clerk of this court shall also cause a copy of this order to be served upon the trial court. See T E X

. R. A PP

. P. 35.3(c).

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I ha ve hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 15th day of August, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
**Exhibit 23**




CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




We
      hereby
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
      Form
      S-3 (No. 333-85142) and Forms S-8 (No. 33-48476, 33-54175, 33-65199, 333-88923,
      333-90167, 333-116053, 333-127081 and 333-127809) of Alltel Corporation of
      our
      report dated February 20, 2007 relating to the consolidated financial
      statements, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control
      over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over
      financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K. We also consent to the
      incorporation by reference of our report dated February 20, 2007 relating to
      the
      financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.








/s/
      PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP




Little
      Rock, Arkansas


February
      20, 2007
Exhibit 99.3

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

To Quanta Services, Inc.:

We
have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Quanta Services, Inc. (a Delaware corporation) and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2000 and 2001, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, cash flows and stockholders' equity for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2001. These financial statements are the responsibility
of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated financial statements based on our audits.

We
conducted our audits in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about
whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit
also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits
provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In
our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Quanta Services, Inc. and subsidiaries as of
December 31, 2000 and 2001, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2001, in conformity with accounting
principles generally accepted in the United States.

ARTHUR
ANDERSEN LLP

Houston,
Texas
February 14, 2002 (except for the matters
discussed in Note 16, as to which
the date is March 25, 2002)

---

QuickLinks
#### Adkins *v.*Nicholson.

*Jurisdiction.—Circuit Court.—Court of Common*Pleas.—The circuit court has the power and jurisdiction to set aside and declare void, as fraudulent, a ■judgment recovered in the court of common pleas, upon the complaint of a creditor of the judgment defendant, such creditor not being a party to said judgment.

APPEAL from the Monroe Circuit Court.

Pettit, J.

The only question in this case is, has the circuit court the power and jurisdiction to set aside and declare void, for fraud, a judgment of the common pleas court; at the instance and on the complaint of an injured creditor of the fraudulent judgment defendant, such creditor not having been a party to the fraudulent judgment? We answer the question in the affirmative. The case of *De Armond*v. *Adams,*25 Ind. 455, is directly and conclusively in point with the case before us. Under the code, relief can be had against a fraudulent judgment, confessed for the purpose of defeating an honest creditor, in the same suit in which the judgment is sought for itself. *Harker*v. *Glidewell,*23 Ind. 219; *Feaster*v. *Woodfill,*23 Ind. 493. A stranger to a judgment may attack it in a collateral proceeding for fraud used in obtaining it. *Lee*v. *Back,*30 Ind. 148.

We deem it unnecessary to cite further authorities, or make any additional remarks or reasoning of our own.

The judgment is affirmed, at the costs of the appellant.

Buskirk, C. J., having been engaged as counsel for Thomas *536Moore, who was a defendant below, but does not join in this appeal, declined to sit in the case.*

*P. C. Dunning*and *J. W.*Buskirk, for appellant.

*N. Van Horn, R. W. Miers, % S. Harvey,*and *F. J. Mat-tier,*for appellee.

*

Petition for a rehearing overruled.
#### L. F. Barnes, plaintiff and appellant, *vs.*Thomas B. Smith, defendant and respondent.

It was decided in this case that causes of action on several judgments can not be united in one action, unless all the debtors in the judgments are the same, and are made defendants.

Before Moncriee, Robertson and Monell, JJ.

Heard October 7, 1863 ;

decided November 14, 1863.

See the points decided, in the index'to this volume, under' the title Practice—Judgment, Joinder of Actions.

See the appeal from an order sustaining a demurrer to the complaint, with the opinion of the court at general term by Moncriee, J. reported in 16 *Abbott’s Pr.*420.
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4827 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2004 

Received 

An Act 

To amend the Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area 

and Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness Act of 2000 to 

rename the Colorado Canyons National Conservation 

Area as the McInnis Canyons National Conservation 

Area. 
2 

HR 4827 RDS 

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

3 SECTION 1. MCINNIS CANYONS NATIONAL CONSERVATION 

4 AREA. 

5 (a) PURPOSE.—The Colorado Canyons National Con6 servation Area and Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness Act 

7 of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 460mmm et seq.) is amended in sec8 tion 2(b) by striking ‘‘Colorado Canyons’’ and inserting 

9 ‘‘McInnis Canyons’’. 

10 (b) DEFINITIONS.—Section 3 of such Act is amend11 ed— 

12 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘Colorado’’ 

13 and inserting ‘‘McInnis’’; and 

14 (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘Colorado’’ 

15 and inserting ‘‘McInnis’’. 

16 (c) COLORADO CANYONS NATIONAL CONSERVATION

17 AREA.—Section 4 of such Act is amended— 

18 (1) in the heading, by striking ‘‘COLORADO’’ 

19 and inserting ‘‘MCINNIS’’; and 

20 (2) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘Colorado 

21 Canyons’’ and inserting ‘‘McInnis Canyons’’. 

22 (d) ADVISORY COUNCIL.—Section 8(a) of such Act 

23 is amended by striking ‘‘Colorado Canyons’’ and inserting 

24 ‘‘McInnis Canyons’’. 
3 

HR 4827 RDS 

1 (e) SHORT TITLE.—Section 1 of such Act is amended 

2 by striking ‘‘Colorado’’ and inserting ‘‘McInnis’’. 

3 (f) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the ‘‘Colorado Canyons National Conservation 

6 Area’’ shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘McInnis 

7 Canyons National Conservation Area’’. 

8 (g) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section and the amend9 ments made by this section take effect on January 1, 

10 2005. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 28, 

2004. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

I, James W. Bernau, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Willamette Valley
Vineyards, Incorporated;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the
small business issuer and have:
a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the small business issuer, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuer's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):
a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and
b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

Date: May 13, 2005
/s/ James W. Bernau
    James W. Bernau,
    Chief Executive Officer
The Honorable Russell G. Clark, United States District Judge 1

for the Western District of Missouri.

___________

No. 95-3622

___________

United States of America, *

 *

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

 * District Court for the

v. * Western District of Missouri.

 *

Gary A. Lopes, * [UNPUBLISHED]

 *

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: April 16, 1996

 Filed: April 22, 1996

___________

Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Gary Lopes pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute

methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. At

sentencing he challenged the assessment of a seventh criminal history point

for a 1985 "No Driver's License" municipal conviction, which resulted in

a fine and one year probation. The district court nonetheless assigned

1

Lopes a Category IV criminal history based on seven points, rather than

Category III based on six points. See U.S.S.G. § 5A. The court determined

a Guidelines sentencing range of 210 to 262 months, and sentenced Lopes to

210 months imprisonment and five years supervised release. Lopes appeals,

and we affirm.
-2-

Although Lopes's sentence falls within the 188-to-235-month range

that would have applied if he had had a Category III criminal history, we

conclude the sentence is reviewable because there is no certainty the

district court would have imposed the same sentence under the lower range,

particularly because the government was required to recommend sentencing

at the low end of the Guidelines range pursuant to the written plea

agreement. See United States v. Kloor, 961 F.2d 1393, 1394 (8th Cir. 1992)

(per curiam).

We review de novo the application of the Sentencing Guidelines.

United States v. Casares-Cardenas, 14 F.3d 1283, 1288 (8th Cir.), cert.

denied, 115 S. Ct. 147 (1994). A defendant earns three points for a prison

sentence exceeding thirteen months, U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(a), two points for a

prison sentence of at least sixty days, U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(b), and one point

for a "prior sentence" not counted in (a) or (b), U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(c).

Prior sentences for misdemeanor offenses are counted, except that certain

"prior offenses and offenses similar to them, by whatever name they are

known, are counted only if . . . the sentence was a term of probation of

at least one year"; those offenses include "[d]riving without a license."

U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(c)(1). Because Lopes failed to produce any evidence to

show that his "No Driver's License" offense was not similar to "driving

without a license," we conclude the district court properly assessed the

criminal history point. See United States v. Mason, 74 F.3d 890, 891 (8th

Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (in § 4A1.2(c)(1) context, "violations of local

ordinances . . . do count for sentencing purposes so long as a probation

term of at least one year was imposed").

The judgment is affirmed.
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-40269

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RUBEN ZAMORA-NUNEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:11-CR-81-1

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ruben Zamora-Nunez, federal prisoner # 83167-279, challenges the 

denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion, wherein he sought a reduction of 

his 108-month prison term for possession with intent to distribute more than 

100 kilograms of marijuana based on Amendment 782 to the United States 

Sentencing Guidelines. He contends that the district court did not truly take

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 22, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-40269 Document: 00513810065 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/22/2016
No. 16-40269

2

into account his history and characteristics and misapprehended the nature 

and circumstances of his offense. 

We review the denial of a § 3582(c)(2) motion for an abuse of discretion. 

United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009). Here, the district 

court’s order reflects its consideration of Zamora-Nunez’s motion, the policy 

statement under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. 

Zamora-Nunez essentially asks us to reweigh the district court’s balancing of 

the § 3553(a) factors. However, “[t]he decision whether to reduce the sentence 

is in the sound discretion of the district judge.” United States v. Whitebird, 55 

F.3d 1007, 1009 (5th Cir. 1995). Because the record shows that the district 

court gave due consideration to the § 3582(c)(2) motion and the § 3553(a) 

factors, Zamora-Nunez has not shown an abuse of discretion. See id. at 1010.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 16-40269 Document: 00513810065 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/22/2016
Exhibit 10(d)

                   INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLANS
                                FOR
                        EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
                          (1996 AND 1997)


 In 1997, Mr. Olvey will participate in an incentive compensation plan
 which provides for a bonus opportunity ranging from 0% of base salary if
 1996 earnings per share are at or below $2.20 to 100% if the 1997 earnings
 per share are at least $3.30 per share.  Mr. Peterson and Mr. Urbanek will
 participate in similar plans which provide for a bonus equal to 75% and
 80%, respectively, of their base salary based upon the same $2.20 to $3.30
 range of earnings per share.  Earnings per share will be adjusted for
 accruals on SARs, bonus expense and extraordinary items.  Mr. Peterson
 will also be entitled to a maximum bonus of 25% of base salary upon
 satisfaction of individual performance objectives established at the
 beginning of the year by the President and CEO.  Mr. Carlson will
 participate in an incentive compensation plan under which 65% of his bonus
 will be based on the operating profits of the Company's Specialty Paper
 Division, 25% on satisfaction of individual performance objectives
 established at the beginning of the year by the President and CEO and 10%
 of the Company's earnings per share within the range described above.
 Mr. Canavara will participate in an incentive compensation plan under
 which 65% of his bonus will be based on operating profits at the Towel and
 Tissue Division, 25% on satisfaction of individual performance objectives
 established at the beginning of the year by the President and CEO and 10%
 of the Company's earnings per share within the range described above.

 During 1996, Mr. Olvey participated in an incentive compensation plan
 which provided for a bonus opportunity ranging from 0% of base salary if
 1996 earnings per share were at or below $1.20 to 100% if 1995 earnings
 per share were at least $2.03 per share.  Mr. Peterson and Mr. Carlson
 participated in similar plans which provided for a bonus equal to 75% and
 50%, respectively of their base salary based upon the same $1.20 to $2.03
 range of earnings per share.  Earnings per share were adjusted for
 accruals on SARs, bonus expense and extraordinary items.  Mr. Peterson and
 Mr. Carlson participated in an incentive compensation plan based on the
 operating profit of the Converted Products Division which provided for a
 maximum bonus of 25% of Mr. Carlson's base salary.