alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-60711

Summary Calendar

ZHONG LIANG CHEN,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A088 066 922

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Zhong Liang Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of a

decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from

the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for withholding of removal

and for relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Because the BIA

approved of and relied upon the IJ’s decision, we review the decisions of both the

BIA and the IJ. Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994).

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 13, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

 Case: 11-60711 Document: 00512050985 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/13/2012
No. 11-60711

Chen argues that the BIA erred in denying his application for withholding

of removal. We review that denial for substantial evidence, reversing only if the

evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Id. We find that the BIA’s

determination that Chen did not suffer past persecution and does not harbor a

well-founded fear of future persecution based on an enumerated ground is

supported by substantial evidence. Taking all of his statements as true, the BIA

concluded that the enumerated incidents, which occurred during Chen’s

schooling, did not rise to the level of persecution. We agree that Chen has not

shown that the evidence compels a contrary determination. See Chen v.

Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006).

Turning to relief under the CAT, Chen argues that the BIA erred in

denying his application. “Torture is defined as any act by which severe pain or

suffering . . . is intentionally inflicted on a person . . . when such pain or

suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or

acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.” 

8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(1). To obtain relief under the CAT, an applicant must show

that it is “more likely than not” that he would be tortured if returned to his home

country. 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2); Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344-45 (5th

Cir. 2005). Chen’s testimony did not show that it is more likely than not that the

Chinese government and its officials, acting in their official capacity, would

torture him or acquiesce in his torture.

Chen does not argue any error with respect to the BIA’s denial of his

application for asylum. Accordingly, he has waived review of any issue related

to the denial of his asylum application. See Thuri v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 788, 793

(5th Cir. 2004).

The petition for review of the denial of withholding of removal and

protection under the CAT is DENIED.

2

 Case: 11-60711 Document: 00512050985 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/13/2012
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4066 

To prohibit the designation of Brazil under title V of the Trade Act of 

1974. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 16, 2006 

Mr. GRAHAM introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To prohibit the designation of Brazil under title V of the 

Trade Act of 1974. 

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

3 SECTION 1. GENERALIZED SYSTEM OF PREFERENCES. 

4 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress makes the following find5 ings: 

6 (1) The generalized system of preferences 

7 (GSP) is an important economic tool which gives de8 veloping countries duty free access to United States 

9 markets for certain products. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
2 

•S 4066 IS

1 (2) Brazil has utilized the benefits of the gener2 alized system of preferences to gain access into 

3 United States markets and to increase Brazil’s im4 ports of automotive brakes, refined copper cathodes, 

5 refined copper wires, plywood, parts of generators, 

6 and other products. 

7 (3) Brazil is the third leading beneficiary under 

8 the generalized system of preferences with respect to 

9 access into the United States markets. The total 

10 value of imports from Brazil under the generalized 

11 system of preferences was over $3,600,000,000 in 

12 2005. 

13 (4) When granting benefits under the general14 ized system of preferences to a country, the Presi15 dent is directed to consider the country’s commit16 ment to a liberal trade policy. 

17 (5) Brazil has imposed prohibitive antidumping 

18 duties of over 100 percent against United States 

19 and Argentine exports of polyethylene terephthalate 

20 (PET), which is a resin widely used to make plastic 

21 packaging for soft drinks, foods, cosmetics, and 

22 pharmaceuticals. 

23 (6) Brazil failed to conduct antidumping inves24 tigations properly, in apparent violation of Article VI 

25 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
3 

•S 4066 IS

1 1994, giving the United States companies no oppor2 tunity to fully defend themselves or cure alleged de3 fects in their responses, despite their attempts to co4 operate fully. 

5 (b) INELIGIBILITY FOR GENERALIZED SYSTEM OF

6 PREFERENCES.— 

7 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 502(b)(1) of the 

8 Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2462(b)(1)) is 

9 amended by adding at the end the following: 

10 ‘‘(J) Brazil.’’. 

11 (2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made 

12 by this subsection applies to goods entered, or with13 drawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

14 the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6456
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee, versus KAREEM TOMBLIN, Petitioner - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior District Judge. (CR-92-238-3-V) Submitted: May 16, 2002 Decided: May 28, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kareem Tomblin, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Lee Whisler, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Kareem Tomblin appeals the district court’s order denying his motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Tomblin , No. CR-92-238-3-V (W.D.N.C. Dec. 4, 2001). 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
**Exhibit 32.2**

**WABCO HOLDINGS INC.**

**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 Annual Report of WABCO Holdings Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Ulrich Michel, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

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

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as ofand for the periods covered in the Report. 

 

Dated: February 24, 2009
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 Annual Report of BLS Media, Inc. a Nevada corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Gary
Prager, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his
knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and





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





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
BLS Media, Inc., and will be retained by BLS Media, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





/s/
      Gary PragerGary
      Prager
                          Chief
      Financial Officer
                          March
      30, 2009
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Dustin Wayne Glenn v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-13-00640-CR, 01-13-00641-CR

Trial court case number: 12CR2237, 12CR2238

Trial court: 405th District Court of Galveston County, Texas

Appellant, Dustin Wayne Glenn, has filed a motion to consolidate the above-referenced 

appeals and cause numbers 01-14-00042-CR and 01-14-00195-CR, contending that “it appears 

that all grounds for appeal are similar.” In cause numbers 01-13-00640-CR and 01-13-00641-

CR, Glenn appeals from judgments of convictions for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. 

In cause numbers 01-14-00042-CR and 01-14-00195-CR, Glenn appeals from the trial court’s 

denial of his applications for writs of habeas corpus. We deny the motion to consolidate.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Terry Jennings



Date: June 10, 2014
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           6,998
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,353
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,438
<INVENTORY>                                      8,277
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                31,009
<PP&E>                                          35,154
<DEPRECIATION>                                  13,172
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  63,114
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           27,873
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           30,444
<PREFERRED>                                     58,643
<COMMON>                                         2,270
<OTHER-SE>                                    (96,016)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    63,114
<SALES>                                         23,914
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                23,914
<CGS>                                           22,547
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   22,547
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                25,044
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,622
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (23,677)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (646)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (23,031)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (23,031)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (3.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.18)


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jason F. BRIDGES, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 08-8266.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 21, 2009.

Decided: May 27, 2009.

Jason F. Bridges, Appellant Pro Se. Shawn Angus Morgan, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia; Thomas Oliver Mucklow, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jason F. Bridges appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Bridges,*No. 1:05-cr-00080-IMK-JSK-1 (N.D.W.Va. Oct. 15, 2008). 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.*
##### 



SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington, D.C. 20549
 FORM 6-K
 Report of Foreign Private Issuer
Pursuant to Rule 13a-16 or 15d-16
of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934
 For the
month of March 2006
    
    Commission File Number 001-15014
 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL INC.
  
 (Translation of registrants name into English)
 150 King Street West, Toronto, Ontario, M5H 1J9
 
 (Address of principal executive offices)
  Form 20-F o
    
    Form 40-F þ
 Rule 12g3-2(b)
 Yes o
    
    No þ
 Rule 12g3-2(b)
 N/A
    
 99.1
    
    Notice of Annual Meeting of Common Shareholders - May 10, 2006 and Management Information Circular99.2
    
    Notice of Meeting99.3
    
    Shareholder Proxy Forms99.4
    
    Request for Delivery of Financial Statements99.5
    
    Letters to Shareholders99.6
    
    Annual Report 2005




---



##### 



SIGNATURE
 Securities Exchange Act of 1934
 Sun Life
Financial Inc.
         (Registrant)Date: March 28, 2006
    By
    /s/ Thomas A. BogartThomas A. Bogart,Executive Vice-President and Chief Legal Officer
#### Dean G. Skelos et al., as Duly Elected Members of the New York State Senate, Respondents, v David Paterson, as Governor of the State of New York, et al., Appellants.

Submitted September 8, 2009;

decided September 15, 2009

Reported below, 65 AD3d 339.

Motion by Partnership for New York City, Inc. for leave to file *774a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed.
NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is 

not citable as precedent. It is a public record. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

04-3246 

ARISTIDES PLATO, 

 Petitioner, 

v. 

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, 

 Respondent. 

 __________________________ 

 DECIDED: March 11, 2005 

 __________________________ 

Before MAYER, Circuit Judge, PLAGER, Senior Circuit Judge, and GAJARSA, Circuit 

Judge. 

PER CURIAM. 

 Aristides Plato (“Plato”) appeals the decision of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board dismissing his petition for lack of jurisdiction. Plato v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., DC0831-02-0672-I-1 (MSPB July 7, 2002). We affirm. 

 The board issued a show cause order to Plato requesting that he provide proof 

that the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) had issued a final decision in his 

case, a prerequisite to board jurisdiction. See 5 U.S.C. § 8347(d)(1) (2000); 5 C.F.R. 

§§ 831.109 to .110 (2004). Plato did not respond to this order and failed otherwise to 
offer proof that OPM had issued a final decision. See Minor v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 819 

F.2d 280, 282 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (noting that petitioner has the burden of showing 

jurisdiction). Therefore, the board was correct to dismiss Plato’s case for lack of 

jurisdiction. 

04-3246 2
Morrill & Associates, LLC Certified Public Accountants 1448 North 2000 West, Suite 3 Clinton, Utah 84015 801-820-6233 Phone; 801-820-6628 Fax  July 22, 2014  Office of the Chief Accountant Securities and Exchange Commission 450 West Fifth Street N.W. Washington DC 20549    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM  We hereby consent to the use of our report dated April 3, 2013, with respect to the financial statements as of December 31, 2012 and the related statements of operations, stockholders’ deficit and cash flows for the year ended December 31, 2012 and for the period from inception on March 5, 2005 through December 31, 2012, to be included in the filing of the Form 10-K of Uplift Nutrition, Inc.  Sincerely,   /s/ Morrill & Associates  Morrill & Associates
<PAGE>

                            EXHIBIT 15


To the Shareholders and Board of Directors
  of Sears, Roebuck and Co.

We have made a review, in accordance with standards established
by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of
the unaudited interim financial information of Sears, Roebuck
and Co. for the three-month periods ended March 29, 1997 and
March 30, 1996, as indicated in our report dated April 17, 1997;
because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on
that information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is
included in your Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
three-month period ended March 29, 1997, is incorporated by
reference in Registration Statement Nos. 2-64879, 2-80037,
33-18081, 33-23793, 33-41485, 33-43459, 33-45479, 33-55825,
33-58139, 33-58851, 33-64345, 333-8141 of Sears, Roebuck and
Co.; Registration No. 333-9817 of Sears, Roebuck and Co. and
Sears Roebuck Acceptance Corp.; Registration Statement Nos.
33-57205 and 333-11973 of Sears, Roebuck and Co. and the Savings
and Profit Sharing Fund of Sears Employees; Registration
Statement No. 33-44671 of Sears, Roebuck and Co. and Sears DC
Corp.; and Registration Statement Nos. 33-64775 and 333-18591 of
Sears, Roebuck and Co. and Sears, Roebuck and Co. Deferred
Compensation Plan.

We are also aware that the aforementioned reports, pursuant to
Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, are not considered
a part of the Registration Statement prepared or certified by an
accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant
within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.



Deloitte & Touche LLP

Chicago, Illinois
April 17, 1997
#### In the Matter of Niya Kaylee S., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Yolanda R., Appellant; Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent.

[973 NYS2d 111]

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Jody Adams, J.), entered on or about July 18, 2012, insofar as it brings up for review the fact-finding determination that respondent-appellant mother had derivatively neglected the subject child, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from the fact-finding order, same court and Judge, entered on or about March 26, 2012, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the dispositional order.

*461The finding of derivative neglect is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (Family Ct Act §§ 1012 [f] [i] [B]; 1046 [a] [i]; [b] [i]). Prior neglect findings and a dispositional order placing the mother’s then roughly two- and four-year-old children with the mother’s aunt were entered less than one year before the filing of the instant petition. Although the mother is no longer in an abusive relationship and has a temporary home at her grandmother’s house, the evidence indicates that the underlying conditions that resulted in the prior neglect findings — lack of an income source, medical care, and stable housing — continue to exist *(see e.g. Matter of Kadiatou B.,*52 AD3d 388, 389 [1st Dept 2008], *lv denied*12 NY3d 701 [2009]). Her grandmother’s agreement to house and support her and the child for “a while,” until she obtained public assistance and could move to a shelter, does not warrant a contrary conclusion. Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Andrias and DeGrasse, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4054 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4054

    To amend title 38, United States Code, to expand the number of 
 individuals qualifying for retroactive benefits from traumatic injury 
    protection coverage under Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 15, 2006

 Mr. Craig (for himself and Mr. Akaka) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

    To amend title 38, United States Code, to expand the number of 
 individuals qualifying for retroactive benefits from traumatic injury 
    protection coverage under Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance.

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

SECTION 1. EXPANSION OF INDIVIDUALS QUALIFYING FOR RETROACTIVE BENEFITS 
              FROM TRAUMATIC INJURY PROTECTION COVERAGE UNDER 
              SERVICEMEMBERS' GROUP LIFE INSURANCE.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 501(b) of the Veterans' 
Housing Opportunity and Benefits Improvement Act of 2006 (120 Stat. 
414; 38 U.S.C. 1980A note) is amended by striking ``, if, as determined 
by the Secretary concerned, that loss was a direct result of a 
traumatic injury incurred in the theater of operations for Operation 
Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--The heading of such section is amended 
by striking ``in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi 
Freedom''.
                                 <all>
```
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

DERRICK MYRAN FRANKSON, a.k.a.

Derek White,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-10619

D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00466-SMM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Stephen M. McNamee, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 18, 2014** 

Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Derrick Myran Frankson appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges his jury-trial conviction and 27-month sentence for reentry of a

removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California,

FILED

NOV 28 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * 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).
386 U.S. 738 (1967), Frankson’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no

grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have

provided Frankson the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se

supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed. 

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. 

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

Frankson’s pro se motion filed May 9, 2014, to relieve counsel and for

permission to file his own brief is DENIED as unnecessary.

AFFIRMED. 

2 13-10619