alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 22-3403

___________________________

Sonia Esperanza Calderon Lopez

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner

v.

Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent

 ____________

Petition for Review of an Order of the

 Board of Immigration Appeals

 ____________

 Submitted: April 17, 2023

Filed: April 24, 2023

[Unpublished]

____________

Before GRUENDER, SHEPHERD, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.
Sonia Esperanza Calderon Lopez, a citizen of Guatemala, applied for asylum

and withholding of removal. An immigration judge denied her application, and the

Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed.1 Calderon Lopez petitions for review.

Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, we conclude that

Calderon Lopez has waived review of her asylum and withholding-of-removal claims

because she has failed to meaningfully challenge the agency’s reasons for denying

them. See Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir. 2004) (explaining

that a claim not meaningfully argued in an opening brief is waived); see also, e.g.,

Coreas-Chavez v. Garland, 52 F.4th 413, 416 (8th Cir. 2022); Hassan v. Rosen, 985

F.3d 587, 590 n.1 (8th Cir. 2021). Even if Calderon Lopez had not waived review,

the agency did not err in denying those claims. Among other reasons, her asylum

claim failed because she did not establish a cognizable proposed particular group, see

Mayorga-Rosa v. Sessions, 888 F.3d 379, 383, 384-85 (8th Cir. 2018), or a nexus to

any imputed anti-gang political opinion, seeAguilar v. Garland, 60 F.4th 401, 405-06

(8th Cir. 2023). These determinations, alone, were dispositive of her asylum claim. 

See Miranda v. Sessions, 892 F.3d 940, 944 (8th Cir. 2018); Gonzalez Cano v. Lynch,

809 F.3d 1056, 1059 (8th Cir. 2016). And because her asylum claim failed, she

necessarily failed to meet the higher burden of proof for withholding of removal. See

Agha, 743 F.3d at 615. 

Accordingly, the petition for review is denied. See 8th Cir. R 47B. 

______________________________

1The immigration judge also pretermitted Calderon Lopez’s application for

cancellation of removal, denied protection under the Convention Against Torture, and

denied voluntary departure, but we do not consider those claims because they are

unexhausted or waived. See Agha v. Holder, 743 F.3d 609, 616 (8th Cir. 2014)

(discussing exhaustion); Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir.

2004) (discussing waiver).

-2-
(

)

Plaintiff.

V

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Defendant.

Whereaspro se Plaintiff Gregory Gamache filed an application to proceed in/irmapauperis

on March L 2011 (ECF No. 1.): and

Whereas the Court granted Plaintiffs application to proceed infornia pauperis on April 7,

2011. and directed the clerk of the Court to file Plaintilis Complaint against I)efendant the State ofNew Jersey; and

Whereas Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 8 sets lbrth the following general rules for pleading:

(a) Claim for Relief. A pleading that states a claim for relief must

contain:

(I) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s

jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim

needs no new jurisdictional support:

(2) a short and plain statement ot’ihe claim showing that the pleader

is entitled to reliel and

(3) a demand for the relief sought. which ma include relief’ in the

alternative or different types of relieti : and
Whereas Plaintitis Complaint does not show that Plaintiffis entitled to relief, see Fed. R. Civ.

P. (8)(a)(2);

IT IS on this 7th day of April 2011, ORI)ERED that PlaintifFs Complaint is dismissed

without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1)-(2) for failure to meet the general rules of

pleading.

I 

PETER Ci. SHERIDAN. U.S.D.J.

April 7, 2011
The above named defendant was arrested upon the complaint ofcharging a violation of 21 U.S.C. 846, etc.

DISTRICT OF OFFENSE NEW JERSEY DATE OF OFFENSE

DESCRIPTION OF CHARGES:

Conspiracy to possess and possession with intent to distribute heroin.

FIXED AT

TO: THE UNITED STATES MARSHAL

You are hereby commanded to take the custody of the above named defendant and to commit that defendant with a certified copy of this commitment to the custodian of a place of confinement approved by the Attorney General of the United States where the defendant shall be received and safely kept until discharged in due course of law.

01/13/11

Date

This commitment was received and executed as follows:

5/ Claire C. Cecchi

United States Judge or Magistrate

RETURN

DATE COMMITMENT ORDER RECEIVED PLACE OF COMMITMENT DATE DEFENDANT COMMITTED

DATE UN1TED STATES MARSHAL (BY> DEPUTY MARSHAL
#### Independence Construction Corp., Plaintiff, v AMOCO Construction Corp. et al., Defendants. Jon A. Lefkowitz et al., Nonparty Appellants.

[822 NYS2d 729]

Appeal by Jon A. Lefkowitz and Stuart I. Davis from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Belen, J.), dated August 20, 2004, which, sua sponte, imposed sanctions upon them pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-2.1 (b).

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The order dated August 20, 2004 is not appealable as of right, as no appeal lies as of right from an order that does not decide a motion made on notice *(see*CPLR 5701 [a] [2]) and no application for leave to appeal was made *(see*CPLR 5701 [c]). In any event, the record is inadequate to determine the appeal on the merits *(see Cuffie v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.,*260 AD2d 423 [1999]). Miller, J.E, Santucci, Goldstein, Skelos and Lunn, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1

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 Affinion Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, Nathaniel J. Lipman, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(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; and

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

Dated: May 2, 2008



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Nathaniel J. Lipman              
|Nathaniel J. Lipman                  
|President and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.1





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 Tianyin Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report’), I, Quoqing Jiang, Chief Executive 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 Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)T he information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated.








Date:  May 11, 2010





/s/   Guoqing JiangGuoqing JiangChief Executive Officer & Chairman
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit

__________________________ 

SHERYL TAYLOR, 

Petitioner, 

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, 

Respondent.

__________________________ 

2013-3037 

__________________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. AT1221120255-W-1. 

__________________________ 

ON MOTION

__________________________ 

PER CURIAM. 

O R D E R

Sheryl Taylor moves for various relief, including a review of case law regarding appointment of counsel and 

answers to legal questions regarding the scope of Ms. 

Taylor’s appeal. Ms. Taylor also moves for sanctions to 

order the MSPB to release federal funds and appoint or 

assign counsel to her. 

Case: 13-3037 Document: 35 Page: 1 Filed: 04/30/2013
SHERYL TAYLOR V. MSPB 2

Briefing is already complete in this appeal. Ms. Taylor has had the opportunity to raise any appealable issues 

in those briefs, and the merits panel will address them in 

turn. 

We have also at least twice previously ruled on Ms. 

Taylor’s motion asking for appointment of counsel, informing her that this court does not have a procedure for 

appointing or assigning counsel to pro se litigants. That 

holds equally true now in the context of Ms. Taylor’s 

request for sanctions. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

(1) The motion regarding the scope of Ms. Taylor’s 

appeal is deferred for consideration by the merits panel. 

Copies shall be transmitted to the merits panel. 

(2) The motions requesting sanctions to release federal funds and appoint counsel are denied. 

FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Jan Horbaly 

 Jan Horbaly

 Clerk

s24 

Case: 13-3037 Document: 35 Page: 2 Filed: 04/30/2013
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

|CERTIFICATION                                
|---------------------------------------------
|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

The undersigned, Robert Burden, Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer of Playbox (US) Inc. (the Company), hereby
certifies, 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 on Form 10-Q of
the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and that the information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly
presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

Date: May 15, 2008

| | /s/ Robert Burden                                   | 
| | --------------------------------------------------- | 
| |                                                     | 
| |                                                     | 
| |                                                     | 
| | Robert Burden                                       | 
| | Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer | 

---
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Network Communications, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with
respect to the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods
presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;(c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants
most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case
of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting;
and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):
 (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting.
 NETWORK COMMUNICATIONS, INC.July 24, 2007
    /s/  Daniel R. McCarthyDaniel R. McCarthyChairman and
Chief Executive Officer
Case 3:11-mj-02518-DEA   Document 10   Filed 05/13/11   Page 1 of 2 PageID: 19

Case 3:11-mj-02518-DEA   Document 10   Filed 05/13/11   Page 2 of 2 PageID: 20
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

LISA A. ARDINO, on behalf of

herself and all others

similarly situated,

 Plaintiff,

v.

LYONS, DOUGHTY & VELDHUIS,

P.C.,

 Defendant.

Civil No. 11-848 (NLH/KMW)

ORDER

HILLMAN, District Judge

For the reasons expressed in the Court’s Opinion entered on

this date,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this 14th day of December , 2011,

that Defendant Lyons, Doughty and Veldhuis, P.C.’s motion [Doc.

No. 5] to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)complaint shall be, and hereby is,

GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; and it is further

ORDERED that Defendant’s motion is GRANTED with respect to

the claims alleged in Count I of Plaintiff’s complaint regarding

an alleged violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(5); and it is

further

ORDERED that Count I of Plaintiff’s complaint shall be, and

hereby is, DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and it is further 

ORDERED that Defendant’s motion is GRANTED with respect to

that portion of Count II of Plaintiff’s complaint that alleges a

Case 1:11-cv-00848-KMW Document 10 Filed 12/14/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 143
violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(10) based on Defendant’s December

16, 2010 collection letter; and it is further 

ORDERED that the portion of Count II which is based on the

December 16, 2010 collection letter shall be, and hereby is,

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and it is further

ORDERED that Defendant’s motion is GRANTED with respect to

Plaintiff’s requests for declaratory and injunctive relief; and

it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s requests for declaratory and

injunctive relief under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

shall be, and hereby are, DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and it is

further 

ORDERED that Defendant’s motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

with respect to that portion of Count II of Plaintiff’s complaint

that alleges a violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(10) based on

Defendant’s January 28, 2011 letter and its enclosures; and it is

further

ORDERED that Defendant’s motion is GRANTED with respect to

Plaintiff’s class action allegations as they relate to the

surviving portion of Count II; and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s class action claims relating to the

surviving portion of Count II shall be, and hereby are, DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

 /s/ Noel L. Hillman 

At Camden, New Jersey NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

2

Case 1:11-cv-00848-KMW Document 10 Filed 12/14/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 144
|EXHIBIT 23(b)
|-------------









|CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CHARTERED ACOUNTANTS
|-------------------------------------------



We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements (Form S-8, Nos. 33-17196, 33-44822, 33-44877, 33-44876, 33-22459, 33-38491, 33-54075, 33-54079, 33-54077, 333-47833, 333-28273, 333-38752 and Form S-3 Nos. 33-36001 and
333-60175) pertaining to various stock option, employee savings, deferred compensation and restricted stock plans and a universal shelf registration statement of Wellman, Inc. of our report dated 31 January 2001, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Wellman International Limited and Subsidiaries at 31 December 2000 and 1999 and for each of the three years in the period ended 31 December 2000, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Wellman, Inc.











KPMG

Chartered Accountants

Registered Auditors





Dublin, Ireland

26 March 2001
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

PATRICIA THOMPSON, et al. 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE 

NETWORK, INC., et al. 

 Defendants. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

CIVIL ACTION 

NO. 2:11-cv-01494-KM-MAH 

 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

Kindly enter the appearance of Lucas A. Markowitz, Esq. on behalf of Defendants Real 

Estate Mortgage Network, Inc., Security Atlantic Mortgage Company, Inc., Noel Chapman and 

Samuel Lamparello in the above-captioned matter. 

 OFFIT KURMAN, P.A.

Dated: August 30, 2021 /s/ Lucas A. Markowitz 

 Lucas A. Markowitz, Esq. 

 590 Madison Avenue, 6th Floor 

 New York, NY 10022 

 Phone: (929) 476-0038 

lucas.markowitz@offitkurman.com 

Attorneys for Defendants Real Estate Mortgage 

Network, Inc., Security Atlantic Mortgage 

Company, Inc., Noel Chapman and Samuel 

Lamparello 

Case 2:11-cv-01494-KM-MAH Document 286 Filed 08/30/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 3574
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Lucas A. Markowitz, Esq.’s Notice of 

Appearance on behalf of Defendants Real Estate Mortgage Network, Inc., Security Atlantic 

Mortgage Company, Inc., Noel Chapman and Samuel Lamparello has been served on all Counsel 

of record by the Court’s ECF System. 

 OFFIT KURMAN, P.A.

 

 /s/ Lucas A. Markowitz 

 Lucas A. Markowitz, Esq. 

Dated: August 30, 2021 

4817-0928-4089, v. 1

Case 2:11-cv-01494-KM-MAH Document 286 Filed 08/30/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 3575
#### CHAPPELL & CO., Inc., v. HADDAD.

No. 627.

District Court, D. Massachusetts.

April 8, 1940.

Charles N. Segal and Herbert Lerner, both of Springfield, Mass., for plaintiff.

Henry H. Lepper, of Pittsfield, Mass., for defendant.

McLELLAN, District Judge.

In this action for copyright infringement the plaintiff moves for an order requiring the clerk of this Court to issue a trustee writ in the sum of one thousand-dollars. Garnishment in many cases of which the state has jurisdiction is provided for by statute, subject to qualifications which need not here be stated. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, provide in substance that all remedies providing for seizure (including attachment) of property for the purpose of securing satisfaction of the judgment ultimately to be entered in the action are available under the circumstances and in the manner provided by the law of the State in which the District Court is held. Rule 64. The plaintiff could not have begun successfully a copyright case such as is here involved in the state court by trustee process §£ — otherwise Ño attachment on mesne"! processTeing afforded under state practice, I think the motion for an order to the clerk to issue a trustee writ should be denied. Little v. Grieco-Gibbs, Inc., D.C., 12 F.Supp. 798, an action at law for patient infringement, which involved the Conformity Act and not any construction of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requires no different result.

The motion is denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 Quarterly Report of Metals USA Holdings Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010 (the Periodic Report), I, C. Lourenco Goncalves, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. To my knowledge, the Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d),
as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



|                      |  |  |  |                                                            
|--------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: August 5, 2010 |  |  |  | /s/    C. LOURENCO
GONCALVES                               
|                      |  |  |  | C. Lourenco Goncalves
President and Chief Executive Officer

The foregoing Certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not being
filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure statement.

A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 2 2

- 1321

KATIA CAROLINA VARGAS ANARIBA; K.A.M.V.
,

P e ti tioners
,

v.

MERRICK B. G AR L A N D
, Attorney General

R e spo nd e nt

.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted : November 2 9 , 202 2 Decided: August 31, 2023

Before GREGORY and HARRIS , Circuit Judges , and FLOYD , Senior Circuit Judge

.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

ON BRIEF: Mark J. Devine, Charleston, South Carolina, for Petitioners. Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Corey L. Farrell, Acting Senior Litigation Counsel, Jaclyn G. Hagner, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF J USTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1321 Doc: 27 Filed: 08/31/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM:

Katia Carolina Vargas Anariba and her minor daughter , native s and citizen s of

Honduras, petition for review of a fi n al order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

( “ Board ” ) d eny ing their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection

under the Convention Against Torture

. After thoroughly reviewing the record, we

conclude that the evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to the administrative factual

findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B), and that substantial evidence supports the denial of

relief, see INS v. Elias

- Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992)

. Accordingly, we deny the

petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED USCA4 Appeal: 22-1321 Doc: 27 Filed: 08/31/2023 Pg: 2 of 2