alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Charanjit Singh CHANDHAR, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-70023.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 16, 2006.*

Filed Oct. 23, 2006.

Manpreet Singh Gahra, Law Office of Manpreet Singh Gahra, Berkeley, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, Jerry L. Short, Esq., U.S. Attorney’s Office, Charles Evans Whittaker Courthouse, Kansas City, MO, for Respondent.

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 **

Charanjit Singh Chandhar, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals *773summarily affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Chand-har’s challenge to the denial of CAT relief because he failed to exhaust it before the BIA. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

We have jurisdiction over petitioner’s remaining claims pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial evidence, *Chebchoub v. INS,*257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001), we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding because the internal inconsistency in Chandhar’s testimony regarding whether he was in hiding in Uttar Pradesh or attending a public celebration in his village in the Punjab are not minor and go to the heart of his asylum claim. *See id.*at 1043.

Because Chandhar cannot meet the lower standard of eligibility for asylum, he has failed to show that he is entitled to withholding of removal. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

To the extent that Chandhar contends that the IJ was biased against him, we conclude that the IJ’s language did not reflect a bias against Chandhar, and that, even if the IJ had been biased, Chandhar failed to show that he suffered any prejudice. *See Hassan v. INS,*927 F.2d 465, 469 (9th Cir.1991).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gregory Molloy, Appellant.

[871 NYS2d 88]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel P. FitzGerald, J.), rendered December 21, 2006, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal contempt in the first degree (three counts) and criminal contempt in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly admitted evidence of prior incidents involving the same victim, since this evidence was probative of the “reasonable fear of . . . physical injury” element of Penal Law § 215.51 (b) (vi), as well as to explain the origin of the charges and the relationship between defendant and his victim (see *People v Palladino,*47 AD3d 491, 492 [2008], *lv denied*10 NY3d 843 [2008]; *People v Garvin,*37 AD3d 372 [2007], *lv denied*8 NY3d 984 [2007]). A sufficient connection between the prior incidents and the victim’s reasonable fear could be inferred from the evidence, whose probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect.

Defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits. Use of the conjunctive “and” in the indictment did not obligate the People to prove more than what was required under the statutes *(see People v Charles,*61 NY2d 321, 327-328 [1984]).

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). Defendant was not so intoxicated as to cast doubt on his ability to form the requisite intent. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Mazzarelli, Sweeny, DeGrasse and Freedman, JJ.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**WILLIAM HLUSHMANUK,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 541 EAL 2015** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 22nd day of December, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of** 

**Appeal is** DENIED

**.**
- 1 - 

United States Court of Appeals 

For the First Circuit 

No. 14-1359 

CARMEN D. BURGOS-YANTÍN, et al., 

Plaintiffs, Appellees, 

v. 

MUNICIPALITY OF JUANA DÍAZ, et al., 

Defendants, Appellants. 

ERRATA SHEET 

The opinion of this Court, issued on November 19, 2018, 

is amended as follows: 

From page 7, line 12, through page 8, line 2, substitute 

the following text, including footnotes 6 and 7: 

. . . . 

Municipality in this case. The Municipality 

has never challenged the Secretary's Law 9 

decision in the commonwealth courts.[fn 6] 

Although the Municipality contends that it had 

no means of seeking review under Puerto Rico 

law, the Fajardo decision itself -- the result 

of another municipality's challenge to a Law 

9 decision -- belies that contention.[fn 7] 

Hence, "by the time . . . ." 

[fn 6] The Municipality claims that it 

challenged the Secretary's decision by filing 

an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in the 

Fajardo case. This argument is meritless. 

The Municipality's expression of support for 

a legal argument asserted by a different 
- 2 - 

municipality in a different case does not 

preserve that argument in its own proceeding. 

[fn 7] The municipality in Fajardo challenged 

the Secretary's decision by filing a 

declaratory judgment action pursuant to Puerto 

Rico Civil Procedure Rule 59. 

 On page 8, line 20, remove superseded footnote 7.
#### In the Matter of Prince T. Alarape, Appellant, v New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development et al., Respondents.

Submitted February 23, 2009;

decided April 7, 2009

Motion for leave to appeal denied. Motion for a stay dismissed as academic.

Chief Judge Lippman taking no part.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                               1
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      151
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                         31
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   183
<PP&E>                                           3,218
<DEPRECIATION>                                     885
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,116
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              211
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           877
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,926
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,116
<SALES>                                             45
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    45
<CGS>                                               75
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      140
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (95)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        26
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (69)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (69)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                                Certification of
                             Chief Executive Officer
                        of Mission Resources Corporation

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, and accompanies the quarterly report on Form 10-Q
(the "Form 10-Q") for the quarter ended September 30, 2002 of Mission Resources
Corporation (the "Issuer").

I, Robert L. Cavnar, the Chief Executive Officer of the Issuer, certify that:

     (i)  the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a)
          or 78o(d)); and

     (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Issuer.

Dated:  November 13, 2002

                              /s/ Robert L. Cavnar


Subscribed and sworn to before me
this 13th day of November, 2002


/s/    Carmen M. Garcia

Notary Public in and for the
State of Texas

My commission expires:
From: The District Court of the 21st Judicial District. County of Ravalli.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. BLAINE FADNESS, Defendant,

CAUSE NO. DC-06-178 DECISION

On September 12, 2007, the defendant was sentenced as follows: Count I: Forty (40) years in the Montana State Prison, with twenty (20) years suspended, for the offense of Attempted Deliberate Homicide, a felony; Count II: Forty (40) years in the Montana State Prison, with twenty (20) years suspended, for the offense of Attempted Deliberate Homicide, a felony; and Count III: Forty (40) years in the Montana State Prison, with twenty (20) years suspended, for the *83offense of Attempted Deliberate Homicide, a felony. Counts I, II and III shall run concurrently with each other.

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 Kara Docherty. The state was represented by George Corn who appeared via videoconference.

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 wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana provides that “the sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive.” (§46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

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.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4034 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4034

 To amend title 18 of the United States Code to prohibit certain types 
                           of vote tampering.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 29, 2006

Mr. Reid (for himself and Mrs. Clinton) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 18 of the United States Code to prohibit certain types 
                           of vote tampering.

    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 ``Voter Suppression, Ballot Hacking, 
and Election Fraud Prevention Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON VOTE TAMPERING.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 29 of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 612. Vote tampering
    ``(a) In General.--Whoever knowingly and willfully interferes with, 
affects, attempts to interfere with, or attempts to affect an election 
of a candidate or a ballot initiative by tampering with a voting 
system, discarding ballots, or altering a vote shall be fined under 
this title or imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both.
    ``(b) Application.--This section applies only to elections 
described in, and candidates described in, section 11(e)(2) of the 
Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973i(e)(2)).
    ``(c) Civil Action.--Any individual whose right to vote is 
interfered with by reason of a violation of this section may bring a 
civil action in Federal court against the violator and recover damages 
not to exceed $10,000.
    ``(d) Definition.--In this section, the terms `vote' and `voting' 
have the meanings given the terms in section 14(c) of the Voting Rights 
Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973l(c)).''.
    (b) Chapter Analysis.--The chapter analysis for chapter 29 of title 
18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item for 
section 612 the following:

``612. Vote tampering.''.
                                 <all>
```
---

EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATIONS OF
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Arthur D. Levinson, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Genentech, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report of Genentech, Inc. on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Genentech, Inc.





| | By:                | /s/ ARTHUR D. LEVINSON                                           | 
| | ------------------ | ---------------------------------------------------------------- | 
| |                    |                                                                  | 
| | Name:
Title:
Date: | Arthur D. Levinson, Ph.D.
Chief Executive Officer
April 29, 2005 | 

I, David A. Ebersman, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Genentech, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report of Genentech, Inc. on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Genentech, Inc.





| | By:                | /s/ DAVID A. EBERSMAN                                                                  | 
| | ------------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
| |                    |                                                                                        | 
| | Name:
Title:
Date: | David A. Ebersman
Senior Vice President and 
   Chief Financial Officer
April 29, 2005 | 



---
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 443 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 443

      To improve the investigation of criminal antitrust offenses.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 17, 2005

   Mr. DeWine (for himself, Mr. Kohl, and Mr. Leahy) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To improve the investigation of criminal antitrust offenses.

    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 ``Antitrust Criminal Investigative 
Improvements Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT OF PREDICATE CRIMES FOR AUTHORIZATION FOR 
              INTERCEPTION OF WIRE, ORAL, AND ELECTRONIC 
              COMMUNICATIONS.

    Section 2516(1) of title 18, United State Code, is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (q), by striking ``or'' after the 
        semicolon;
            (2) by redesignating subparagraph (r) as subparagraph (s); 
        and
            (3) by adding after subparagraph (q) the following:
            ``(r) any criminal violation of section 1 (relating to 
        illegal restraints of trade or commerce), 2 (relating to 
        illegal monopolizing of trade or commerce), or 3 (relating to 
        illegal restraints of trade or commerce in territories or the 
        District of Columbia) of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1, 2, 3); 
        or''.
                                 <all>
```
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 13- week periods 
ended April 3, 1999 and April 4, 1998, as indicated in our report dated April 
30, 1999; 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 13-week period ended April 3, 1999, 
is incorporated by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 2-64879, 2-80037, 
33-18081, 33-23793, 33-41485, 33-43459, 33-45479, 33-55825, 33-58851, 33-
64345, 333-8141, and 333-38131 of Sears, Roebuck and Co.; Registration 
Statement Nos. 33-58139, 333-9817, 33-64215, 333-30879, and 333-62847 of 
Sears, Roebuck and Co. and Sears Roebuck Acceptance Corp.; Registration 
Statement Nos. 33-64775, 333-18591, and 333-43309 of Sears, Roebuck and Co. 
and Sears, Roebuck and Co. Deferred Compensation Plan; Registration Statement 
Nos. 33-57205, 333-11973, and 333-53149 of Sears, Roebuck and Co. and the 
Sears 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan (formerly, The Savings and Profit Sharing 
Fund of Sears Employees); and Registration Statement No. 33-44671 of Sears, 
Roebuck and Co. and Sears DC Corp.

We are also aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) 
under the Securities Act of 1933, is 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 30, 1999
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification Required by Rule 13a-14(b) or

Rule 15d-14(b) and
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Permian Basin Royalty Trust (the
Trust) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the
trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge:

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

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



|                   |  |                                                               |  |                                                                    
|------------------ |  | ------------------------------------------------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------
|                   |  | BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., TRUSTEE FOR PERMIAN BASINROYALTY TRUST
|                   |  |                                                              
|Date: May 10, 2013 |  | By:                                                           |  | /s/ RON E. HOOPER                                                  
|                   |  |                                                               |  | Ron E. Hooper,                                                     
|                   |  |                                                               |  | Senior Vice President and Trust Administrator Bank of America, N.A.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Permian Basin Royalty Trust
and will be retained by Permian Basin Royalty Trust and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.