alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
SUDAN R . JONES, Pe titioner - Appe lla nt,
v. DEB R A DEXTER , R

e sponde nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-56527

D.C . No. 2:08-c v-00408-C B M
PLA
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia C onsue lo B . M arsha ll, Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding

Subm itte d July

7, 2015 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : D.W . NELSON, C ANB Y, a nd NOONAN, C irc uit Judge s. Suda n Jone s a ppe a ls pro sethe distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of his ha be a s pe tition
c ha lle nging his c onvic tions for two c ounts of ra pe and two c ounts of lewd a c ts upon a c hild. Jone s c la im s he re c e i ve d ine ffe c t ive a s sista nc e of c ounse l (“ IAC ” ) 

# FIL E D
JUL 09 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).be c a

use his tria l c ounse l fa ile d to a de quate ly inve s tiga te and pre se nt his a libi de fe nse , disc oura ge d him from te stify ing, a

nd pre se nte d a

n ina de quate m e dic a l de fe nse . W e have jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C . § 2253. W e re vie w de novo a distric t c o urt’ s de n ia l of a ha be a s pe tition, Stanle

y v . C ulle n , 633 F.3d 852, 859 (9th C ir. 2011), a

n d we a ffirm
. B a se d on a c are ful re v i e w of the re c ord, we c onc lude Jone s ’ s c ounse l ’ s pe rform a nc e wa s not c onstitutiona lly de fic ie nt. Se eStrick

land v . W ashington , 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). Eve n a ssum ing Jone s’ s c ounse l wa s de fic ie nt, Jone s ha s not shown there sult of theproc e e dings would ha ve diffe re d but for his c ounse l’ s unprofe ssiona l e rrors. Se eid. at 694. Thee vide n c e a ga inst Jone s at tria l, inc luding the t e stim ony

of Sa de M ., Andre a

M osle y , Sam

ue l M osle y , M a

k i sha M o sle y , Ida Jorda n , Ja sm ine Stige r, and Dr. Tic son, wa s c om pe l ling. B e c a

use “ fa irm i nde d jurists c ould disagre e , ” Harrington v. Ric hte r , 131 S. C t. 770, 786 (2011), a s to whe the r Jone s’ s c ounse l’ s a lle g e d de fic i e nc ie s “ [did] not a m ount to pre

judic ial ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e of c ounse l,” the C a lifornia C ourt of Appe a l re a sona

b ly
re je c te d Jone s’ s IAC c la i m . S e eStrick land, 466 U.S. a

t 697. AFFIRM E D.

2
#### Mohammed Edy SAFIL, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-74406.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 12, 2009.*

Filed May 26, 2009.

Kathleen S. Koh, Law Offices of Kathleen S. Koh, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioner.

Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Ann Carroll Varnon, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: PREGERSON, CANBY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Mohammed Edy Safil, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 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”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, *Li v. Ashcroft,*378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny the petition for review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Safil has established extraordinary circumstances that excuse the untimely filing of his asylum application. *See*8 C.F.R. § 208.4(a)(5); *see also Husyev v. Mukasey,*528 F.3d 1172, 1181-82 (9th Cir.2008). Accordingly, his asylum claim fails.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination because the discrepancy between Safil’s testimony and his psychologist’s evaluation regarding whether he had been exiled to a small village and abused daily, is a material inconsistency that goes to the heart of his claim. *See Pal v. INS,*204 F.3d 935, 940 (9th Cir.2000); *Li,*378 F.3d at 962 (adverse credibility determination is supported where at least one of the identified grounds is supported by substantial evidence and goes to the heart of the claim). *630In the absence of credible testimony, Safil has failed to establish that he is eligible for withholding of removal. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Because Safil’s CAT claim is based on the testimony the agency found not credible, and he points to no other evidence to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to Indonesia, his CAT claim fails. *See id.*at 1156-57.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3716 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

100 Pitcher Street in Utica, New York, as the ‘‘Captain George A. 

Wood Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 24, 2006 

Mrs. CLINTON introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 100 Pitcher Street in Utica, New York, as 

the ‘‘Captain George A. Wood Post Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CAPTAIN GEORGE A. WOOD POST OFFICE 

4 BUILDING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 100 Pitcher Street in Utica, New 

7 York, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Captain 

8 George A. Wood Post Office Building’’. 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•S 3716 IS

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Captain George A. 

5 Wood Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

March 26, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132857 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 132857 

 COA: 265107 

Kent CC: 04-008733-FC 

SANJOHNA EVAN BRISCOE,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 19, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t0319 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

March 26, 2007 

 Clerk
#### Khalida SCHEIDELMAN and Ronald Scheidelman, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Clinton B. HENDERSON and Renata Henderson, DefendantsAppellees, James Collins, Trustee.

No. 09-5322-bk.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Dec. 1, 2010.

Khalida Scheidelman and Ronald Scheidelman, pro se, Oxford, NY, for Appellants.

Peter A. Orville, Peter A. Orville, P.C., Binghamton, NY, for Appellees.

Present: ROBERT D. SACK, ROBERT A. KATZMANN, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges.

*610
      *SUMMARY ORDER*

Plaintiffs-Appellants Khalida Scheidelman and Ronald Scheidelman, *pro se,*appeal from the December 14, 2009 judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Hurd, *J.)*affirming the bankruptcy court’s denial of a motion to recuse. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and the procedural history of the case.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d), this Court has jurisdiction to review “final” district court decisions stemming from a bankruptcy action. However, the “district court’s own decision of an appeal from the bankruptcy court is not a final decision for purposes of appeal to the court of appeals unless the order of the bankruptcy court was final.” *In re Fugazy Express, Inc.,*982 F.2d 769, 775 (2d Cir.1992). Since the finality requirement is jurisdictional, this Court must consider the issue *sua sponte,*even if it is not raised by the parties. *In re Lomas Fin. Corp.,*932 F.2d 147, 150 (2d Cir.1991).

In this case, the Appellants appealed to the district court from the bankruptcy court’s denial of their motion for recusal. The denial of a motion for recusal ordinarily is not a final order. *See United States v. Yonkers Bd. of Educ.,*946 F.2d 180, 183 (2d Cir.1991). Because the bankruptcy court’s order was not final and there was not a judgment on the merits at the time of the recusal motion, this Court lacks jurisdiction to review the district court’s judgment affirming that order. *See In re Lomas Fin. Corp.,*932 F.2d at 150 (“There is thus no court of appeals jurisdiction over non-final orders originating in the bankruptcy court.”); *cf. Dubnoff v. Goldstein,*385 F.2d 717, 723 (2d Cir.1967) (finding Court lacked jurisdiction over appeal from bankruptcy court’s denial of motion to recuse).

Although this Court may construe an appeal from a non-final order as a petition seeking a writ of mandamus, *see Caribbean Trading & Fid. Corp. v. Nigerian Nat’l Petroleum Corp.,*948 F.2d 111, 115 (2d Cir.1991) (“We have often deemed it appropriate to treat an appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as a petition for a writ of mandamus.”), the Scheidelmans have not demonstrated that the lower court’s refusal to recuse was a clear and indisputable abuse of discretion, *see In re Basciano,*542 F.3d 950, 955-56 (2d Cir.2008). They are therefore not entitled to the issuance of the writ.

Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED.
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
 
  
 1.
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
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/ Erik OlssonErik OlssonPresident and
Chief Executive OfficerFebruary 18, 2010/s/ David MathiesonDavid MathiesonSenior Vice President, and
Chief Financial OfficerFebruary 18, 2010
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2585 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2585

To require the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to 
establish an air tour management plan for certain areas of Hawaii, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 13, 2023

 Mr. Case (for himself and Ms. Tokuda) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
                             Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to 
establish an air tour management plan for certain areas of Hawaii, 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 ``Hawaii Air Tour Management Act of 
2023''.

SEC. 2. AIR TOUR MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR CERTAIN AREAS OF HAWAII.

    (a) Air Tour Management Plan.--
            (1) In general.--Notwithstanding section 40128 of title 49, 
        United States Code, subject to paragraph (2), not later than 2 
        years after the date of enactment of this section, the 
        Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, in 
        consultation with the Governor of Hawaii, shall establish an 
        air tour management plan for any area within the State of 
        Hawaii that is not located within the National Park System.
            (2) Requirements.--The Administrator of the Federal 
        Aviation Administration shall enter into an agreement with the 
        Governor of Hawaii to establish the contents of the plan 
        required by paragraph (1), the procedure for establishing such 
        plan (including with respect to any amendments to the plan), 
        and the responsibilities of each party to such agreement in 
        carrying out the plan.
    (b) Interim Authority.--Until the date on which the air tour 
management plan is established under subsection (a), the Administrator 
of the Federal Aviation Administration may grant an air tour operator 
operating in an area within the State of Hawaii that is not located 
within the National Park System interim operating authority for that 
area.
    (c) Non-Application of the APA.--The provisions of subchapter II of 
chapter 5, and chapter 7, of title 5, United States Code (commonly 
known as the ``Administrative Procedure Act'') shall not apply to the 
establishment of an air tour management plan under this section.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit31.1**

 

Certificationof Chief Executive Officer

 

I, Tom C. Nichols, certify that:

 

1.     I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of Independent Bankshares, Inc.;

 

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

 

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

 

4.     The registrant’s othercertifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

 

(a)   designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the  registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this quarterly is being prepared;

 

(b)  evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

(c)  disclosed in this report and change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

 

5.     The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):

 

(a)  all significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b)  any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 

 
|   | Date:  August 8, 2003                        |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                              |
|   | /s/ Tom C. Nichols                                |
|   | Tom C. Nichols                                    |
|   | Chairman, President and  Chief Executive  Officer |

 

----
EX-35.3
SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

February 29, 2008

Re: Transactions listed on Exhibit A hereto

I, Kendal A. Leeson, a duly elected and acting officer of Wachovia Mortgage
Corporation (the "Servicer"), certify pursuant to Section 6.04 of the Seller's
Purchase, Warranties and Servicing Agreement (the "Agreement"), dated as of
December 1, 2006, as amended by the Regulation AB Compliance Addendum, dated as
of December 1, 2006, by and between Merrill Lynch Mortgage Lending, Inc., as
Purchaser, and Wachovia Mortgage Corporation, as Company as further modified by
the applicable Assignment, Assumption and Recognition Agreements related to the
transactions listed on Exhibit A hereto, with respect to the calendar year
immediately preceding the date of this Certificate, as follows:

1. I have reviewed the activities of the Company during the preceding calendar
year and performance under this Agreement has been made under my supervision;
and

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Company has fulfilled
all of its obligations under this Agreement throughout such year, or, if there
has been a default in the fulfillment of any such obligation, specifying each
such default known to me and the nature and status thereof.

[Signature Page Follows]


(page)


WACHOVIA MORTGAGE CORPORATION,
as Servicer

By: /s/ Kendal A. Leeson
Name: Kendal A. Leeson
Title: Vice President
Date: February 29, 2008


-2-


(page)


Exhibit A- Covered Transactions

1. MANA 2007-F1


-3-
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ade ALEXANDER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-50167.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 16, 2006.*

Filed Oct. 18, 2006.

Becky S. Walker, Esq., Mark A. Young, Esq., USLA — Office of the U.S. Attorney, *152Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Karyn H. Bucur, Attorney at Law, La-guna Hills, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: T.G. NELSON, W. FLETCHER and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Ade Alexander appeals from the sentence imposed following his conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Alexander contends that the district court erred by sentencing him based on a drug quantity that was not found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Because the sentence imposed did not exceed the statutory maximum, this contention is foreclosed. *See United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 244, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005); *United States v. Ame-line,*409 F.3d 1073, 1077-78 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc).

Alexander contends that the application of the remedial portion of the *Booker*decision to his sentence was unconstitutional. This contention is foreclosed by *United States v. Dupas,*417 F.3d 1064, 1068-69 (9th Cir.2005).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOVEMBER 2009 CALENDAR

From: The District Court of the 5th Judicial District. County of Jefferson.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. JAMES BARNES, Defendant,

CAUSE NO. DC-06-2066 DECISION

On May 8, 2009, the defendant was sentenced to a commitment to the Department of Corrections for ten (10) years, with five (5) years suspended, for the offense of Sexual Assault, a felony.

On November 12, 2009, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The defendant was present and was represented by Eric Olson. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he did not wish to proceed.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the application for review of sentence shall be waived.

Done in open Court this 12th day of November, 2009.

DATED this 25th day of November, 2009.

Chairperson, Hon. Stewart Stadler, Member, Hon. Blair Jones and Member, Hon. Richard Simonton.
**Exhibit 24**
**ODYSSEY RE HOLDINGS CORP.**
**POWER OF ATTORNEY**
     **KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS**that each person whose signature appears below constitutes andappoints, jointly and severally, V. Prem Watsa, Andrew A. Barnard and Charles D. Troiano, his orher true and lawful attorneys-in-fact and agents, each of whom may act alone, with full powers ofsubstitution and resubstitution, for him and in his name, place and stead, in any and allcapacities, to sign (1) an annual report on Form 10-K, or such other form as may be recommended bycounsel, to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ***"******Commission"***), andany and all amendments thereto, and any and all instruments and documents filed as a part of or inconnection with the said annual report or amendments thereto, and (2) any reports and applicationsrelating thereto to be filed by the Company with the Commission and/or any national securitiesexchanges under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and any and all amendmentsthereto, and any and all instruments and documents filed as part of or in connection with suchreports or amendments thereto; granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of them,full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary tobe done, as fully for all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, and herebyratifying and confirming all that the said attorneys-in-fact and agents or any of them, maylawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.
     **INWITNESS WHEREOF**, the undersigned have executed this power ofattorney as of the 7th day of March, 2005.      /s/ Andrew A. Barnard /s/ Charles D. Troiano   Andrew A. Barnard Charles D. Troiano   /s/ V. Prem Watsa /s/ James F. Dowd   V. Prem Watsa James F. Dowd   /s/ Frank B. Bennett /s/ Robbert Hartog   Frank B. Bennett Robbert Hartog   /s/ Anthony F. Griffiths /s/ Brandon Sweitzer   Anthony F. Griffiths Brandon Sweitzer   /s/ Samuel A. Mitchell     Samuel A. Mitchell
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-17-0000839 06-MAR-2018 11:34 AM