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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RIGOBERTO SANTIZ GOMEZ, AKA 

Gerardo Luis Francisco Diego, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 18-70975 

Agency No. A095-793-679 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 17, 2019**

Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Rigoberto Santiz Gomez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an 

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his motion for a continuance. Our

jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the

 

* 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

APR 24 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-70975 

denial of a continuance. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 

2008). We review de novo questions of law and claims of due process violations 

in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). 

We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. 

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Santiz Gomez’s motion 

for a continuance where he failed to show good cause. See Sandoval-Luna, 526 

F.3d at 1247 (“[t]he decision to grant or deny a continuance is in the sound 

discretion of the judge and will not be overturned except on a showing of clear 

abuse” (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)). Contrary to Santiz 

Gomez’s contention, Matter of L-A-B-R-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 405 (A.G. 2018) does 

not affect the analysis of the motion to continue in his case. See id. at 405-06. We 

therefore decline to remand for consideration of Matter of L-A-B-R-. 

We also reject Santiz Gomez’s contentions that the IJ violated his due 

process rights by not explaining the availability of asylum and related relief or preconclusion voluntary departure. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 

2000) (requiring error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).

Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary denial of 

voluntary departure. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(f); Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 
3 18-70975 

1174, 1176-77 (9th Cir. 2013) (the court’s jurisdiction over challenges to the denial 

of voluntary departure is limited to constitutional claims or questions of law).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                  5
       
<S>                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                     SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                                29,641
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                              0
<ALLOWANCES>                                               0 
<INVENTORY>                                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      29,641
<PP&E>                                                     0
<DEPRECIATION>                                             0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        29,641
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  2,561
<BONDS>                                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<COMMON>                                               2,150
<OTHER-SE>                                            26,900
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND EQUITY>                          29,641
<SALES>                                                    0 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                           0
<CGS>                                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      18,661
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                         0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            0
<INCOME-TAX>                                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        0
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                         (18,661)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        ($0.008)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        ($0.008)
          

</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Docket ID FEMA-2008-0018; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1831-DR]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Florida (FEMA-1831-DR), dated April 21, 2009, and related determinations.

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         May 11, 2009.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Florida is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of April 21, 2009.

Leon and Wakulla Counties for Individual Assistance (already designated for Public Assistance).

Levy County for Individual Assistance.

Dixie, Gilchrist, Lafayette, and Suwannee Counties for Public Assistance (already designated for Individual Assistance).

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Nancy Ward,

Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. E9-12173 Filed 5-22-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
S. Con. Res. 26 Agreed to September 13, 2005

One Hundred Ninth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the fourth day of January, two thousand and five

Concurrent Resolution

Whereas on September 11, 2001, acts of war involving the hijacking

of commercial airplanes were committed against the United

States, killing and injuring thousands of innocent people;

Whereas one of the hijacked planes, United Airlines Flight 93,

crashed in a field in Pennsylvania;

Whereas while Flight 93 was still in the air, the passengers and

crew, through cellular phone conversations with loved ones on

the ground, learned that other hijacked airplanes had been used

to attack the United States;

Whereas during those phone conversations, several of the passengers indicated that there was an agreement among the passengers and crew to try to overpower the hijackers who had

taken over Flight 93;

Whereas Congress established the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (commonly referred to

as ‘‘the 9–11 Commission’’) to study the September 11, 2001,

attacks and how they occurred;

Whereas the 9–11 Commission concluded that ‘‘the nation owes

a debt to the passengers of Flight 93. Their actions saved the

lives of countless others, and may have saved either the U.S.

Capitol or the White House from destruction.’’; and

Whereas the crash of Flight 93 resulted in the death of everyone

on board: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That

(1) the United States owes the passengers and crew of

United Airlines Flight 93 deep respect and gratitude for their

decisive actions and efforts of bravery;

(2) the United States extends its condolences to the families

and friends of the passengers and crew of Flight 93;

(3) not later than October 1, 2006, the Speaker of the

House of Representatives, the minority leader of the House

of Representatives, the majority leader of the Senate, the

minority leader of the Senate, the Chairman and the Ranking

Member of the Committee on Rules and Administration of

the Senate, and the Chairman and the Ranking Member of

the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the

House of Representatives shall select an appropriate memorial

that shall be located in the United States Capitol and that

shall honor the passengers and crew of Flight 93, who saved

the United States Capitol from destruction; and
S. Con. Res. 26—2

(4) the memorial shall state the purpose of the honor and

the names of the passengers and crew of Flight 93 on whom

the honor is bestowed.

Attest:

Secretary of the Senate.

Attest:

Clerk of the House of Representatives.
OCTOBER 2010 CALENDAR

The District Court of the 18th Judicial District. County of Gallatin.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. DIANE CORRICK, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. DC-09-47A DECISION

On March 9, 2010, the defendant was sentenced to ten (10) years in the Montana State Prison, with three (3) years suspended for the offense of Count I: Theft of Property by Embezzlement, Common Scheme, a felony.

On October 8,2010, 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 Richard Phillips. The state was represented by Martin Lambert.

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 she understood this and stated that she wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rides 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 8th day of October, 2010.

DATED this 21st day of October, 2010.

Chairperson, Hon. Blair Jones, Member, Hon. Richard Simonton and Member, Hon. Ray Dayton.
#### The Mayor and Common Council of the City of Hudson *vs.*Andrews et al.

In error to the Supreme Court.

This cause came before the court in the same manner as the foregoing case, and the same question being presented, was controlled by the decision in that case.

' *Zolrishie,*for defendants in error.

*J. P. Vroorn,*for plaintiff’s.

The opinion of the court was delivered by the

Chancellor.

The result of this case is controlled by the decision just pronounced. The writ of error will not lie.

To which it may be added that, on its face, the order decides nothing. It simply directs public officers to perform a duty enjoined by statute.

The entry of the rule is clearly irregular in form and *580substance. It purports to be peremptory; it clearly authorizes only an alternative *mandmwus.*It directs, by name, an officer to be sworn in, who may not and does not appear to be in office. These irregularities may and should be corrected in the court below.

In this.case there was no motion to quash. The party was suffered to incur the expense of preparing his case for argument. Still, in the absence of authority, the court cannot reverse. In conformity to the practice adopted in *Garr*v. *Hill,*the writ must be dismissed, but *without*costs.

*In*affirmative—The Chancellor, Judges Ogden, Ybedenburgh, Whelpley, Combs, Swain, and "Wood.

*Negative*—FT one.
*Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-50717 Conference Calendar

__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ROMAN GONZALEZ LOPEZ, also known as R.G. Lopez, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-92-CR-215

- - - - - - - - - - April 19, 1996 Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * R.G. Lopez appeals his sentence following remand for conspiracy to distribute heroin and distribution of heroin. Lopez contends that the district court erred by attributing 283.5 grams of heroin to him; increasing his offense level upward for his role as a manager supervisor; increasing his offense level upward for obstruction of justice; increasing his offense level upward for abuse of a position of trust; and attributing to himNo. 95-50717 -2- an amount of heroin he negotiated to sell but was incapable of producing. We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and we find no reversible error. Regarding the manager/supervisor adjustment, we affirm for essentially the reasons relied upon by the district court. Regarding the attribution of 283.5 grams of heroin to Lopez, the district court's finding that Lopez received $12,000 from a coconspirator in October 1992 is clearly erroneous in light of our previous opinion in Lopez's case. However, evidence supports finding that Lopez did receive the money in November 1992 andreasonably could have foreseen that the money was drugtrafficking proceeds. United States v. Maseratti , 1 F.3d 330, 340 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied , 114 S. Ct. 1096, and cert. denied , 114 S. Ct. 1552, and cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 282 (1994). The district court's attribution of 283.5 grams of heroin was not clearly erroneous. Regarding Lopez's remaining contentions, the district court rejected Lopez's objections to the presentence report in part because Lopez filed those objections untimely, on the day before sentencing. Lopez has failed to brief whether the district court erred by rejecting his objections as untimely. Consequently, he has failed to brief the proper issue for appeal. Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). We therefore do not consider Lopez's remaining contentions on their merits.
AFFIRMED.
National Intelligence University
						The Center of Academic Life for the Intelligence Community
																									About UsMenu Toggle
Office of the President
	Board of Visitors
	Vision and Mission
	Locations
	Accreditation
	NIU History
AcademicsMenu Toggle
Degrees
	Certificate in Intelligence Studies
	Schools
AdmissionsMenu Toggle
Apply Here
	Admission FAQs
StudentsMenu Toggle
Academic Calendar
	Academic Catalog
	NIU Library
	Graduation Information
	Student Senate
	Blackboard Login
	NIU Online Store
ResearchMenu Toggle
Caracristi Institute
	Caracristi Monographs
	Intelligence Jumpstart Podcast
	NI Press
	NIU Library
	Research Fellows Program
AlumniMenu Toggle
NIU Online Store
	Thesis Requests
	Transcript Requests
Contact Us
				Search for:
		Search
			Search 
National Intelligence University
						The Center of Academic Life for the Intelligence Community
																									Main Menu AlumniWelcome Back,  Alumni!
				
				NIU is proud of its alumni and their collective achievements in service to the nation after graduation.   As we grow the alumni association, the first step is to reconnect with you.  If you were a**student**, **faculty**, or**staff member** at NIU, or its predecessor schools:National Defense Intelligence College (*2006-2011*)Joint Military Intelligence College (*1993-2006*)Defense Intelligence College (*1983-1993*)Defense Intelligence School (*1962-1983*)Please contact our **Alumni Relations Office,**so NIU can update its records and re-engage with you!
		
				Contact Information
				
				Alumni Relations Office –  NIU_Alumni@odni.gov
 About UsMenu Toggle
Office of the President
	Board of Visitors
	Accreditation
	Vision and Mission
	Location
	History
AcademicsMenu Toggle
Degree
	Certificate Of Intelligence Studies
	Schools
AdmissionsMenu Toggle
Apply here
	Admissions FAQs
StudentsMenu Toggle
Academic Calendar
	Academic Catalog
	NIU Library
	Graduation Information
	Student Senate
	Blackboard Login
	NIU Online Store
ResearchMenu Toggle
Caracristi Institute
	Caracristi Monographs
	Intelligence JumpStart Podcast
	NI Press
	NIU Library
AlumniMenu Toggle
NIU Online Store
	Thesis Requests
	Transcript Request
Contact Us
 Quick Links:Apply Now2023/24 NIU Academic Catalog
Academics:Bachelor of Science in Intelligence DegreeMaster of Science of Strategic IntelligenceMaster of Science and Technology Intelligence DegreeCertificate in Intelligence Studies
School:College of Strategic IntelligenceSchool of Science and Technology Intelligence
					Office of Admissions:Roberdeau HallWashington, DC 20511
Phone: (301) 243-2094Fax: (301) 227-7067Email:  NIU_Admissions@niu.odni.gov
Office of the Registrar:Phone: (301) 243-2093Fax: (301) 227-7067Email: NIU_Enrollments@niu.odni.gov
Accessibility / Section 508
ODNI Privacy Policy Web Policies
NI-U.edu Web Policies
External Links Disclaimer
						National Intelligence University © 2024
EXHIBIT
          32b: Rule 13a - 14(b) Certification
 
 Pursuant
          to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
          Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Earthworks Entertainment,
          Inc. (the “Company”) certifies that:
 
 (1)  The
        Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period ended March
        31,
        2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
        Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d); as amended;
        and
 
 (2)  The
        information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material
        respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
        Company.
 
 
 MAY
                  12, 2006
              /s/ WILLIAM H. CAMPBELLWilliam
                  H. CampbellExecutive
                  Vice President, Chief Financial
                  Officer
CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U. S. C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
connection with the Quarterly Report of WMS Industries, Inc. (“the Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (“the Report”), I, Scott D.
Schweinfurth, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and





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








/s/ Scott D.
Schweinfurth


Scott D.
Schweinfurth


Chief
Financial Officer


February
7, 2008
Form of Ordinary Share Certificate



 Exhibit 4.1 
  

											
	eLong, Inc.	  	 	  	 	  	 	  	 	  	 
	 Matter
	  	 :   711360
	  	 	  	 	  	Issued to:	  	 
	 Type of Share
	  	 :   
	  	 	  	 	  	 	  	 
	 Certificate #
	  	 :   
	  	Date of Record	  	 :        
	  	 	  	 
	 # of Shares
	  	 :   
	  	Transfer to cert. #	  	 :        
	  	 	  	 
	 Amount Paid
	  	 :   100%
	  	# of Shares	  	 :        
	  	 	  	 
	 Par Value
	  	 :   US$0.01
	  	Transfer Date	  	 :        
	  	 	  	 

  
  
  
  
 Incorporated in the Cayman Islands 
  
 eLong, Inc.

  

	 This is to certify that 
	 [name of shareholder] 



	 	 [address of shareholder] 


  
  
  
  
 is/are the registered shareholders of: 
  

					
	 No. of Shares

	 	 Type of Share

	 	 Par Value


	 	 	 	 	US$0.01

  

					
	 Date of Record

	 	 Certificate Number

	 	 % Paid


	 	 	 	 	100

  
 The above shares are subject to
the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Company and transferrable in accordance therewith. 
 Given under the Common Seal of the Company

  
  

							
	 	  	Director	  	 	  	Director/Secretary