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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BRAIYAN ADRIAN VEJAR 

RODRIGUEZ, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 19-71714 

Agency No. A205-191-194 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 14, 2021**

Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. 

Braiyan Adrian Vejar Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions 

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his 

motion to remand and dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision 

denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, relief under 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

DEC 20 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-71714 

Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and cancellation of removal. We have 

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s 

denial of a motion to remand. Taggar v. Holder, 736 F.3d 886, 889 (9th Cir. 

2013). We deny the petition for review.

In his opening brief, Vejar Rodriguez does not raise, and therefore waives, 

any challenge to the denial of his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, CAT 

relief, and cancellation of removal. See Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 

1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013) (failure to contest issue in opening brief resulted in 

waiver).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Vejar Rodriguez’s motion to 

remand to reassess his eligibility for cancellation of removal on the ground that the 

new evidence submitted was not likely to change the outcome. See Garcia v. 

Holder, 621 F.3d 906, 912 (9th Cir. 2010) (providing that a motion to reopen will 

not be granted absent a showing of prima facie eligibility for relief based on 

demonstrating a reasonable likelihood that the statutory requirements have been 

satisfied); see also Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 602-03 (9th Cir. 2006) 

(court has jurisdiction to review the motion to reopen where “the evidence 

submitted addresses a hardship ground so distinct from that considered previously 

as to make the motion to reopen a request for new relief”). 

We reject as unsupported by the record Vejar Rodriguez’s contention that 
3 19-71714 

the BIA engaged in impermissible factfinding or otherwise erred in its analysis of 

his motion to remand. 

The stay of removal remains in effect until the issuance of the mandate. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
| (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 Company. |
|------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   |                                                                                                    |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                    |   |
|   | By:    | /s/ Paul Mendez                                                                                    |   |
|   |   | Paul Mendez,Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)Synergx Systems Inc.Date: May 14, 2010 |   |
|   |   |                                                                                                    |   |
|   |   |                                                                                                    |   |

|   |   |                                                                                                                  |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                  |   |
|   | By:    | /s/ John A. Poserina                                                                                             |   |
|   |   | John A. Poserina,                                                                                                     |   |
|   |   | Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)Synergx Systems Inc.Date:  May 14, 2010 |   |
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-4762

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WITHROW WILSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Shelby. Lacy H. Thornburg, District

Judge. (CR-96-53)

Submitted: August 27, 1998 Decided: September 10, 1998

Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rion Brady, Archdale, North Carolina, for Appellant. Mark T.

Calloway, United States Attorney, Deborah A. Ausburn, Assistant

United States Attorney, Richard L. Harrison, Third-Year Law

Student, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Withrow Wilson filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss

the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing

notices of appeal are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods

are “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of

Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v.

Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). In a criminal case a defendant

has ten days within which to file in the district court notices of

appeal from judgments or final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b). The

district court entered its judgment on May 5, 1997. Wilson’s notice

of appeal was filed on September 16, 1997. Appellant’s failure to

file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension of the

appeal period leaves this court without jurisdiction to consider

the merits of his appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ramon Diaz, Appellant.

[963 NYS2d 580]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Juan M. Merchan, J), rendered March 1, 2011, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of bail jumping in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s challenge to the court’s charge is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the court, which followed the Criminal Jury Instruction, correctly instructed the jury on all the necessary elements of second-degree bail jumping (Penal Law § 215.56).

We have considered and rejected defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel argument *{see People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; *see also Strickland v Washington,*466 US 668 [1984]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

Concur— Andrias, J.P, Saxe, DeGrasse, Richter and Gische, JJ.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 23.1







CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS





We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of
Andrea Electronics Corporation and Subsidiaries (the "Company") on Form S-3
(333-69248, 333-51424, 333-83173, 333-61115), and Form S-8 (333-82738,
333-31946, 333-82375, 333-52129, 333-45421, 333-38609, 333-35687, 033-84092,
333-14385) of our report dated March 25, 2003, except for notes 1 and 19(d) to
which the date is April 11, 2003 on our audit of the consolidated financial
statements of the Company as of December 31, 2002, and for the year then ended
which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.






/s/ Marcum & Kliegman LLP
-------------------------
Marcum & Kliegman LLP

Woodbury, New York
April 11, 2003
#### Electrical Waste Recycling Group, Limited, Respondent, v Andela Tool & Machine, Inc., Formerly Known as Andela Products, Ltd., Appellant.

[974 NYS2d 883]

— Motion for reargument or leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. Present — Scudder, PJ., Peradotto, Lindley, Sconiers and Whalen, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Shariff H., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Respondent.

[978 NYS2d 55]

In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the presentment agency appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Ambrosio, J.), dated January 14, 2013, which dismissed the petition. The appeal brings up for review the granting, after a hearing, of that branch of the respondent’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

*828Pursuant to Administrative Code of the City of New York § 10-131 (i) (3), “[fit shall be unlawful for any person not authorized to possess a pistol or revolver within the city of New York to possess pistol or revolver ammunition, provided that a dealer in rifles and shotguns may possess such ammunition.” This juvenile delinquency proceeding arose after a police officer, while conducting a warrantless search of the respondent’s closed backpack, found ammunition inside the backpack. The Family Court granted that branch of the respondent’s omnibus motion which was to suppress the physical evidence, and upon the presentment agency’s representation that it could not proceed without the physical evidence, dismissed the petition. The presentment agency appeals. Contrary to the respondent’s contention, the appeal is properly before this Court pursuant to Family Court Act § 365.1 (2).

Contrary to the presentment agency’s contention, the respondent had standing to contest the warrantless search of his backpack *(see People v Ramirez-Portoreal,*88 NY2d 99, 108-109 [1996]). In addition, the presentment agency failed to establish that the respondent abandoned the backpack *(see id.*at 110; *People v Davis,*69 AD3d 647, 649 [2010]; *People v Vega,*256 AD2d 730, 731 [1998]; *People v Carter,*133 AD2d 230, 231 [1987]; *People v Pacheco,*107 AD2d 473, 476-477 [1985]).

“At a suppression hearing, the presentment agency bears the burden of establishing the legality of police conduct in the first instance” *(Matter of Robert D.,*69 AD3d 714, 716 [2010]; *see People v Berrios,*28 NY2d 361, 367 [1971]). The record supports the Family Court’s determination that the presentment agency failed to establish the existence of exigent circumstances justifying a warrantless search of the respondent’s backpack *(see People v Knapp,*52 NY2d 689, 695-697 [1981]; *People v Chisolm,*7 AD3d 728, 729 [2004]; *People v Vega,*256 AD2d at 731; *People v Johnson,*241 AD2d 527, 527-528 [1997]). Accordingly, the physical evidence was properly suppressed. Dickerson, J.E, Hall, Cohen and Miller, JJ., concur.
No. 143.

#### Board of Trade of Kansas City et al. *v.*United States et al.

February 2, 1942.

314 U. S. 534.
<PAGE> 1
                                                            Exhibit 21


                              Subsidiaries
                              ------------


Registrant:  Angelica Corporation, State of Incorporation:  Missouri

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                   Percentage
                                                                   of Voting
                                                                   Securities
                                            State of               Owned by
      Name                                  Incorporation          Registrant
      ----                                  -------------          ----------
<S>                                    <C>                            <C>
Angelica Realty Co.                     California                    100%
Angelica Textile
  Services, Inc.                        California                    100%
Angelica International Ltd.             Federal Corporation, Canada   100%
Angelica Textile
  Services, Inc.                        New York                      100%
Southern Service Company                California                    100%
Industrias Textiles El Curu             Costa Rica                    100%
Angelica Holdings Limited<F*>           United Kingdom                100%
</TABLE>

Retail operations of the Registrant include a chain of 298 retail uniform
specialty shops operating under the umbrella name of "Life Uniform and Shoe
Shops."  Generally, all shops operating in a specific state form one company
incorporated under the laws of that state.   All such corporations (38) are
wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Registrant.

[FN]
<F*>Parent Company of Angelica International Limited, incorporated under the
laws of the United Kingdom, all of whose voting securities are owned by
Angelica Holdings Limited.

All of the above subsidiaries are included in the consolidated financial
statements filed herewith.
# Fourth Court of Ap peals

San Antonio, Texas

January 27, 2017

No. 04

- 16

- 00756

- CR

IN RE Hisidoro D. RAMON , Jr.

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez , Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa , Justice

On January 3, 2017, Relator filed a motion for rehearing. On January 13, 2017 Relator

filed a Motion for Extension of Time to allow Relator more time to obtain documents relating to

his motion for rehearing. The panel has considered the motion s and both are DENIED.

It is so ORDERED on January 27, 2017

.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTE D TO:

______________________________ _

Keith E. Hottle , Clerk

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. B15

- 33 , styled State of Texas v. Hisidoro D. Ramon, Jr., pending in the

198th Judicial District Court

, Kerr County, Texas, the Honorable M. Rex Emerson p residing.
# Drill #6

&"Times New Roman,Bold"Use of Foam		&"Times New Roman,Bold"Drill #6

&P	

&P	

# Code Page

# image1.png
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                    JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                                4,594
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        46,467
<ALLOWANCES>                                          2,851
<INVENTORY>                                          24,445
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     80,280
<PP&E>                                               33,150
<DEPRECIATION>                                        8,273
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      245,336
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                37,366
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               3
<COMMON>                                                631
<OTHER-SE>                                           91,462
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        245,336
<SALES>                                              98,641
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     98,641
<CGS>                                                70,363
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        93,179
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        150
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    6,224
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        (729)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           (669)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                            (60)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        ($0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        ($0.01)



</TABLE>
[— NYS2d —]

#### Sandra L. Shutter, Plaintiff, v HSBC Bank USA, Defendant.

City Court of Auburn,

January 21, 2004

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Sandra L. Shutter,*plaintiff pro se.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Michael F. McKeon, J.

This small claims action arose as the result of a mistake in addition during a routine bank deposit. Plaintiff opened a savings account at defendant bank with the deposit of a number of checks on September 11, 2003. Defendant credited plaintiffs account and returned a validated deposit slip. Both parties totaled the instruments at the time of the deposit.

*920On the same day, defendant issued notice to plaintiff that her account had been charged back $400 due to a mathematical error on the deposit slip. Plaintiff now sues to recover that amount, claiming that defendant had lost a $400 tax rebate check issued by the IRS.

It is a long established principle that a deposit receipt is not a negotiable instrument, but merely a receipt memorializing a transaction. *(Terrasi v Manufacturers Trust Co.,*121 NYS2d 242, 245 [1953].) For this reason, article 4 of the Uniform Commercial Code does not control. It is also generally accepted that a party questioning a bank deposit slip bears the burden of proof. *(See, e.g.,*9 NY Jur 2d, Banks and Financial Institutions § 233; *Jiang v First Natl. City Bank,*65 Misc 2d 150 [1970].)

According to *Terrasi,*a deposit ticket, being merely a receipt and not a binding contract, is therefore open to explanation. Only a presumption of accuracy exists and the bank is free to reopen the account to examine for correctness at any time. *Terrasi*also notes that an account becomes “stated” after a reasonable amount of time, becoming binding on both parties absent any fraud, mistake, or other equitable consideration. *(Id.*at 245-246.) Here, due to the mistake, defendant enjoyed full rights to examine and correct plaintiffs deposit. Furthermore, defendant immediately moved to correct the error and notice was dispatched to plaintiff on the same day.

In the absence of damages, plaintiff may not automatically recover on a theory of negligence, as there is no presumption of actual damage. *(Id.*at 247, citing *National Sur. Co. v President & Directors of Manhattan Co.,*252 NY 247 [1929].) Plaintiff here cannot show prejudice or impairment of rights, nor inability to recover from a third party due to defendant’s error.

Finally, by not producing a copy of the tax rebate check, plaintiff has failed to satisfy her burden of proof of its existence. Accordingly, plaintiffs claim is hereby dismissed.
**Skill #07*Fire and Aviation Preparedness Review Guide***

**Pump Check & Flow Test**

**Skill #07*Fire and Aviation Preparedness Review Guide***

**Pump Check & Flow Test**

Revised 2008Skill 7-2

Skill 7-1Revised 2008
OKLAHOMA CITY REGION DIRECTOR

ANTHONY WHEELER

Anthony Wheeler is the Region Director for the National Indian Gaming 

Commission’s Oklahoma City Region office. He is responsible for training, 

technical assistance and compliance with the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act for 

75 Indian gaming operations and 22 gaming tribes located in western Oklahoma 

and Texas. Before joining NIGC in 2007, Wheeler spent 17 years in law 

enforcement including stints as Investigator and Police Chief for the Kickapoo 

Tribe of Oklahoma. Wheeler also worked for the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe in 

Connecticut as a patrolman. Wheeler investigated criminal activity at casinos 

and later became involved in game protection, serving as surveillance manager 

at Sac & Fox and Osage Nation Casinos in Oklahoma. 

Wheeler attended Seminole State College and is a graduate of the BIA Indian 

Police Academy, Federal Criminal Investigator Academy, and the FBI National 

Academy.

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act created the National Indian Gaming Commission to support tribal self-sufficiency and the integrity of Indian gaming. 

NIGC oversees the efficient regulation of 524 gaming establishments operated by 248 tribes across 29 states.

Updated 8/31/2021

Biography

National Indian Gaming Commission
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION



Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, UNITED STATES Code)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Zoom Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), does hereby certify that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 (the Form 10-Q) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all materials respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                       |                        
|---------------------- | -----------------------
|Date:  August 18, 2009 |                        
|                       | /s/ Robert Crist       
|                       | Robert A. Crist        
|                       | Chief Financial Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MARCUS JACKSON,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 29 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 2nd day of July, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
#### The People of the State of New York, by Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General of the State of New York, Appellant, v Wells Fargo Insurance Services, Inc., et al., Respondents.

Submitted November 29, 2010;

decided December 14, 2010

Motion by Liberty Mutual Insurance Company et al. for leave to appear amici curiae on the appeal herein granted only to the extent that the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief must be served and 24 copies filed within seven days.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. SS. 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of World Waste Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, John Pimentel, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my
knowledge:

         (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 results of
              operations of the Company.


March 30, 2007                                         /s/ John Pimentel
                                                       -------------------------
                                                       John Pimentel
                                                       Chief Executive Officer