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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TEHAL SINGH,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 12-71901

Agency No. A089-697-716

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 18, 2014**

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

Tehal Singh, a native and citizen of India, 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 protection 

under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 

 

*

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).

FILED

NOV 28 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 12-71901

U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, 

applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the 

REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010).

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination 

based on discrepancies between Singh’s testimony and record evidence regarding 

whether he was a Christian in India and when his home was burned. See id.; see 

also Goel v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 735, 739 (9th Cir. 2007) (inconsistency between 

testimonial and documentary evidence is proper basis for adverse credibility 

finding). Singh’s explanations do not compel a contrary result. See Lata v. INS, 

204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Further, substantial evidence also supports 

the BIA’s finding that Singh has not otherwise established a well-founded fear of 

persecution country-wide if he returns to India as a Christian. See 8 C.F.R. § 

1208.13(b)(2); see also Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 337-38, 340 (9th Cir. 1995) 

(record must compel a finding of well-founded fear). Thus, Singh’s asylum and 

withholding of removal claims fail. 

Finally, Singh’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same evidence the 

agency found not credible, and he does not point to any other evidence in the record 

that compels the finding that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or 
3 12-71901

with the acquiescence of the government if returned to India. See Farah v. 

Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S DECEMBER 31, 1998 AUDITED BALANCE SHEET, INCOME STATEMENT
AND CASH FLOW STATEMENT, AND NOTES THERETO, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                   14,433,311
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                          0
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                       3,656,008
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       377,182
<OTHER-ASSETS>                               1,052,385
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,518,886
<COMMON>                                     2,427,752
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                          5,219,875
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>               7,647,627
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         4,418,000
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   94,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               7,359,259
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>               19,518,886
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                    4,394,911
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                           210,934
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   3,288,898
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   3,499,832
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        895,079
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                           3,629,036
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>               4,524,115
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       613,322
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,910,793
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                3,910,793
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       522,295
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                      440,999
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         968,586
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     5.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     4.95
        

</TABLE>
NUMBER 13-07-00503-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

______________________________________________________________

IN RE: NABORS DRILLING USA, LP AND CARLOS HERNANDEZ

_____________________________________________________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the 93rd District Court 

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

______________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Yañez, Rodriguez, and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Relators, Nabors Drilling USA, LP, and Carlos Hernandez, filed a petition for writ of

mandamus with a motion for temporary relief in the above cause on August 15, 2007.

Through the petition, relators asked this Court to vacate an order of the trial court denying

their motion to compel arbitration, and issue a writ of mandamus requiring the trial court

to compel the requested arbitration. 
2

The Court granted the motion for temporary relief and ordered stayed all

proceedings in the trial court pending further order of this Court, or until the case is finally

decided. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10(b) (“Unless vacated or modified, an order granting

temporary relief is effective until the case is finally decided.”). The Court further requested,

and received, a response to the petition for writ of mandamus from the real party in

interest, Jorge Nava. 

The real party in interest has now filed a motion to dismiss this original proceeding

on grounds that he has filed a demand for arbitration, and accordingly, the petition for writ

of mandamus is moot. Relators have not filed a response to this motion to dismiss, and

more than ten days have elapsed since this motion was filed. See id. 10.3.

The Court, having considered the documents on file and the real party in interest’s

motion to dismiss this original proceeding, is of the opinion that the motion should be

granted. The motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and this petition for writ of mandamus is

hereby DISMISSED. 

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and 

filed this the 20th day of March, 2008.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Estate of Franklin Velasquez, Deceased, Respondent, v NGA Construction Company, Inc., et al, Respondents, and Continental Indemnity Company, Appellant. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

[977 NYS2d 423]

Peters, RJ.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed September 24, 2012, which ruled that Continental Indemnity Company was responsible for decedent’s workers’ compensation death benefits.

In May 2010, M&L Enterprises, LLC subcontracted with NGA Construction Company, Inc., a New Jersey company, to install siding on a building in Brooklyn. During the project, decedent, an employee of NGA, fell from a scaffold and suffered severe blunt impact injuries from which he died soon thereafter. An *1052application for workers’ compensation death benefits was subsequently filed. Following a hearing, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge determined that decedent had suffered a work-related injury resulting in his death and that the workers’ compensation insurance policy issued to NGA by New Jersey Casualty Insurance Company did not provide coverage in New York and that, as a result, Continental Indemnity Company, as the workers’ compensation carrier for M&L Enterprises, was liable for coverage. Continental appealed and the Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed, prompting this appeal.

We affirm. Workers’ Compensation Law § 50 (2) was amended, effective September 9, 2007, to provide that an employer must secure workers’ compensation insurance “through a policy issued under the law of this state” *(see*L 2007, ch 6, § 6). The Board, through subject No. 046-198, issued July 12, 2007, clarified that requirement by explaining that “all out-of-state employers with employees working in New York State will be required to carry a full, statutory New York State workers’ compensation insurance policy” which was further defined as “one where New York is listed in Item 3A on the Information Page of the employers’ workers’ compensation insurance policy.”

Here, the information page on the policy issued to NGA by New Jersey Casualty lists only “New Jersey” under Item 3A. Furthermore, although the policy also incorporates, pursuant to Item 3D, a “New Jersey Limited Other States Insurance Endorsement,” this endorsement does not apply when the employer is “by virtue of the nature of [its] operations in [a state not listed in Item 3A], required by that state’s law to have obtained separate workers’ compensation insurance coverage.” Thus, where the policy issued by New Jersey Casualty did not list New York in Item 3A, NGA was required to obtain “a full, statutory New York State workers’ compensation insurance policy” that listed New York in Item 3A. Accordingly, we find the Board’s decision to be supported by substantial evidence *(see e.g. Matter of Bland v Gellman, Brydges & Schroff*100 AD3d 1289, 1291 [2012], *lv dismissed*20 NY3d 1055 [2013]; *Matter of Young v Ceramic Tile Contrs.,*288 AD2d 570, 572 [2001]).

Lahtinen, Spain and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-10-057-CR

ISSAC DEJESUS RAMIREZ APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

------------

FROM THE 396TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

------------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

------------

Pursuant to a plea bargain, appellant Issac DeJesus Ramirez pled guilty

to the offense of sexual assault of a child under seventeen in exchange for a

sentence of two years’ confinement. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.011

(Vernon Supp. 2009). The trial court’s certification of appellant’s right of

appeal states that this is “a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right

of appeal.” Appellant filed a pro se response to this court’s inquiry into its

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
jurisdiction, alleging that he only took the plea bargain because his attorney

falsely told him that there “was absolutely no way for [him] to receive a

probated sentence.” Appellant’s response is not grounds for continuing the

appeal, however. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2); Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d

675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (holding that if appellant fails to meet any of

exceptions in rule 25.2(a)(2), “no inquiry into even possibly meritorious claims

may be made.”). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P.

25.2(d), 43.2(f); Chavez, 183 S.W.3d at 680.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, DAUPHINOT, and GARDNER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: March 18, 2010

2
Exhibit 32.2


                            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 on Form 20-F of American Israeli
Paper Mills Limited (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned, Israel Eldar, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to sec.
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, as amended; and

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

Date: June 28, 2005                          /s/ Israel Eldar
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Israel Eldar
                                             Chief Financial Officer
#### Joseph Gerdvil, Appellant, v Vito J. Rizzo et al., Respondents.

Submitted October 25, 2010;

decided December 16, 2010

*943Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied *[see*15 NY3d 819 (2010)].
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Khawar Maqsood, Appellant, v McRoberts Protective Agency et al., Respondents. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

Submitted March 21, 2011;

decided May 3, 2011

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine *872the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.
No. 806.

#### Manheim et al. *v.*Merle-Smith et al.; and Salomon *v.*Merle-Smith et al.

No. 811.

February 2, 1942.

*Messrs. Louis Connick*and *Hugh L. M. Cole*for petitioners in No. 806. *Solomon G. Salomon, pro se,*in No. 811. *Messrs. William C. Chanler, Chester W. Cuthell, Boykin C. Wright,*and *Clifton Murphy*for respondents.

Petitions for writs of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2866 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2866

  To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to 
 reauthorize the juvenile accountability block grants program through 
                           fiscal year 2014.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 10, 2009

  Mr. Burris introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to 
 reauthorize the juvenile accountability block grants program through 
                           fiscal year 2014.

    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 ``Juvenile Accountability Block Grants 
Program Reauthorization Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF JUVENILE ACCOUNTABILITY BLOCK GRANTS PROGRAM 
              THROUGH FISCAL YEAR 2014.

    Part R of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act 
of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796ee et seq.) is amended--
            (1) in section 1801A(a), by striking ``section 1810(b)'' 
        and inserting ``section 1810(c)'';
            (2) in section 1810(a), by striking ``2009'' and inserting 
        ``2014''; and
            (3) in section 1810(b), by inserting ``and each of the 
        fiscal years 2009 through 2014'' after ``2004''.
                                 <all>
```
#### State v. Mims

Case below: 180 N.C. App. 403

No. 005P07

1. Def’s NOA Based Upon a Constitutional Question (COA06-10)

2. Def’s Motion to Withdraw NOA and PDR

1. _

2. Allowed 05/03/07
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1997
<CASH>                                      10,158,109
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                              232,126,549
<ALLOWANCES>                                11,339,388
<INVENTORY>                                167,684,308
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           478,131,912
<PP&E>                                     444,487,942
<DEPRECIATION>                             210,944,497
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             889,156,143
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      377,442,182
<BONDS>                                    126,279,294
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                 391,465,435
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               889,156,143
<SALES>                                  1,216,023,021
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         1,239,342,537
<CGS>                                    1,207,436,129
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            16,162,850
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               364,388
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,135,077
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             12,608,481
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,400,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         11,208,481
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                11,208,481
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) 

### MAKIITARYAHIA NAJI ) 

### AL-WRAFIE (lSN 117), ) ) Petitioner, ) ) 

### v. ) Civil Action No. 04-1254 

### (RCL) ) 

### BARACK OBAMA, ) President ofthe United States, 

### etal., ) ) Respondents. ) ) 

### ORDER Upon the Court's own motion, it is hereby ORDERED that petitioner Makhtar Yahia Naji AI-Wrafie (ISN 117) is transferred by consent ofthejudges from Judge Kennedy to the undersigned member ofthis Court. It is further ORDERED that the Clerk ofCourt shall create a new civil action comprised ofthe above captioned petitioner. It is further ORDERED that any filing made by the petitioner listed above inAbdah, et al. v. Obama, et al., Civ. No. 04-1254 (HKK) (D.D.C.) shall be deemed a part ofthe record in the new civil action to be created bythe Clerk ofCourt, and that the Clerk ofCourt shall endeavor to copy such filings into the docket for the newly-created case as soon as practicable. It is further ORDERED that upon creation ofthe new civil action described in the paragraphs above, the Clerk ofCourt shall terminate the petitioner listed above as a partyin this case. SO ORDERED.

ROY C. LAMBERTH, CHIEF JUDGE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S DECEMBER 31, 1999 AUDITED BALANCE SHEET, INCOME STATEMENT AND CASH
FLOW STATEMENT, AND NOTES THERETO, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                   15,721,783
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                          0
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                       1,031,124
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       595,263
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                 933,101
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              18,281,271
<COMMON>                                     2,634,762
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                          5,511,802
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>               8,146,564
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         4,324,000
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                             360,000
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   94,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               5,356,707
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>               18,281,271
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                    4,623,817
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                           278,126
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   3,454,359
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   3,732,485
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        891,332
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                             476,749
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>               1,368,081
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       448,184
<NET-INCOME>                                   919,897
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  919,897
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       627,970
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                      431,936
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                       (405,981)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .59
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .56


</TABLE>