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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FEN XING CHEN,

Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 14-71112

Agency No. A087-610-379

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 14, 2016**

Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Fen Xing Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an 

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and

withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We 

 

* 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

JUN 21 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 14-71112 

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). We deny the 

petition for review.

The BIA found Chen not credible based on an inconsistency between his 

testimony and application as to his continued practice of Falun Gong in China after 

his arrest, the omission from his application that police had come to his home six 

times after he left China, and the IJ’s negative demeanor finding. Substantial 

evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination. See id. at 1048 

(adverse credibility finding reasonable under the “totality of circumstances”). In 

the absence of credible testimony, Chen’s asylum and withholding of removal 

claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7481

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

ADRIAN LAMONT BENNIEFIELD, a/k/a Adrian Benniefield, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District 

Judge. (3:09-cr-00055-HEH-1) 

Submitted: November 21, 2013 Decided: November 26, 2013

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Adrian Lamont Benniefield, Appellant Pro Se. Roderick Charles 

Young, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Adrian Lamont Benniefield appeals the district court’s 

order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for 

reduction of sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. United States v. Benniefield, 

No. 3:09-cr-00055-HEH-1 (E.D. Va. Aug. 19, 2013). 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. 

AFFIRMED
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 Transportation

###### Federal Aviation Administration

          - 14 CFR Part 39
          - [Docket No. FAA-2007-0219; Directorate Identifier 2007-NE-46-AD; Amendment 39-15806; AD 2009-03-05]
          - RIN 2120-AA64

# AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

# ACTION:

Final rule; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        The FAA is correcting airworthiness directive (AD) 2009-03-05. That AD applies to PWC PW206 and PW207 series turboshaft engines. We published that AD in the                         **Federal Register**                         on February 20, 2009 (74 FR 7794). Paragraph (d) in the regulatory text is incorrect. This document corrects that paragraph. In all other respects, the original document remains the same.                    

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         Effective July 27, 2009.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Ian Dargin, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park; Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:                         *ian.dargin@faa.gov*; telephone (781) 238-7178; fax (781) 238-7199.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    On February 20, 2009 (74 FR 7794), we published a final rule AD, FR Doc E9-3046, in the                     **Federal Register**                    . That AD applies to PWC PW206A, PW206B, PW206B2, PW206C, PW206E, PW207C, PW207D, and PW207E turboshaft engines. We need to make the following correction:                

§ 39.13

On page 7795, in the third column, in the regulatory text, in the 10th paragraph, in the fourth line, delete “Bell 429,”.

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on July 20, 2009.

Peter A. White,

Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. E9-17599 Filed 7-24-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                             103
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      131
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        624
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   894
<PP&E>                                             166
<DEPRECIATION>                                      51
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   9,151
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,629
<BONDS>                                            176
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            31
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,616
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     9,151
<SALES>                                            306
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   306
<CGS>                                              257
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      257
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,865
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  42
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,858)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,858)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,858)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.11)


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2


                  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) and
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


         In connection with the filing by Rush Financial Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30,
2006 (the "Report"), I, Randy Rutledge, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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) and 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 operation of the Company.




                                                   /s/ M. Patricia Kane
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                   M. Patricia Kane
                                                   Chief Financial Officer


Dated:  August 21, 2006


This certification shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by
reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent as shall be expressly set forth by
specific reference in such filing.




                                       35
# LabStat Codes

# Column Key
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States Court of Appeals
**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

DAVID A. MOSINSKI,

Petitioner

v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent

______________________

2024

- 1333

______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection

Board in No. CH

- 0842

- 21

- 0268

- I

- 1.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

O R D E R

David A. Mosinski informs the court that he wishes towithdraw this petition for review, which the court construes as a motion to voluntarily dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b). The Office of

Personnel Management consents to the dismissal , with

e ach party to bears its own cost

. Upon consideration thereof,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT : Case: 24-1333 Document: 7 Page: 1 Filed: 02/21/2024MOSINSKI v. OPM 2

(1) The petition is dismissed.

(2) Each party shall bear its own costs.

February 21 , 2024

Date F OR THE C OURT

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: February 21, 2024 Case: 24-1333 Document: 7 Page: 2 Filed: 02/21/2024
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 Annual Report of Soyo Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-K for the period  ended  December 31, 2005 as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  the  undersigned,  Ming
Tung Chok,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company  certifies,  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  13a-14(b) or
15d-14(b) 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.


 /s/ Ming Tung Chok
-----------------------
Ming Tung Chok
Chief Executive Officer
March 31, 2006
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

Alpha Pro Tech, Ltd

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

 

18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,

 

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTS OF 2002

 

In connection withthe quarterly report of Alpha Pro Tech, Ltd on Form 10-Q for the quarterending June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Sheldon Hoffman Chief Executive Officerof the Company, certify, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant toss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934: and

 

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

 
| DATE:  | **August 9,  2005** |                                  | BY: | /s/  **Sheldon Hoffman** |   |
|--------|--------------------------|---------------------------------------|-----|--------------------------|--------|
|   |                     |                                  |
|   |                     | Sheldon  Hoffman                      |
|   |                     | Chief  Executive Officer and Director |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           124,625
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                           0
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 155,128
<CASH>                                          18,239
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                   0
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                          46,944
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,181,122
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                122,216
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                  0
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                          957,773
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,000
<OTHER-SE>                                      79,093
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,181,122
<PREMIUMS>                                          27
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                             12,160
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                               (120)
<OTHER-INCOME>                                  10,581
<BENEFITS>                                       4,557
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                      3,864
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                             8,205
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,022
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,108
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,914
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,914
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0


</TABLE>
#### In re HOWARD.

(District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

June 24, 1903.)

No. 651.

1. Bankruptcy—Claim to Property—Evidence Considered.

Evidence considered, and *held*insufficient to sustain the claim of a third person to the ownership of property sold by a receiver in bankruptcy.

In Bankruptcy. On certificate from referee concerning claim of Joseph E. Walker.

V. Gilpin Robinson, for claimant.

E. H. Hall, for trustee.

J. B. McPHERSON, District Judge.

This controversy turns upon one disputed question of fact. The claimant demands that a certain part of the fund now in the hands of the trustee shall be paid over to him, on the ground that such part is the proceeds of certain chattels that were sold by the receiver as the property of the bankrupt, whereas in fact (such is the averment) they were the property of the claimant, and had been his for about eight years before the sale.

I have read and considered the testimony that was taken on this subject, and I agree with the learned referee that the claimant has failed to make out his case. The testimony is no doubt conflicting, but the probabilities seem to me to be against his account of the transaction. He avers that he acquired title at a sheriff’s sale in 1892, when the property was sold under five or six executions against its then owner, S. C. Shortlidge, and was bought in by the claimant’s attorney, acting in behalf of several of the execution creditors. *992There is other testimony, however, to the effect that the beneficial ■purchasers at that sale were the bankrupt and another person, who was not the claimant; and this testimony is strongly corroborated by the facts that the claimant never went into possession, save for a short time, and then only as to part of the property; that even as to this part he speedily relinquished such possession as he may have had, and for eight years allowed everything to be used by others without demanding rent or making any claim to be the owner, either sole or in -common with other persons; that he knew of the receiver’s sale, but gave no notice of his title to intending purchasers, and made no claim upon the proceeds for a year thereafter; and that the other persons, whom he names as co-owners with himself, never had possession, or asserted title, or leased the property, and do not join in making claim upon, the fund. Moreover, the bankrupt was in possession of the property, did claim title thereto, and did lease it to others, thus exhibiting the signs of ownership, and affording reasonable ground for the conclusion that he was what he appeared to be. The careful and •capable argument made on the claimant’s behalf is based on the assumption that he became an owner at the -sheriff’s sale in 1892, and •ceases to be applicable if, as I think, the fact is otherwise.

The rejection of the claim is affirmed.
Exhibit 21.1

**Subsidiaries of Better Minerals & Aggregates Company**

 

U.S. SILICA COMPANY, a Delaware corporation 

BMAC SERVICES CO., INC., a Delaware corporation 

BETTER MATERIALS CORPORATION, a Pennsylvaniacorporation 

BMC TRUCKING, INC., a Delaware corporation 

CHIPPEWA FARMS CORPORATION, a Pennsylvania corporation 

COMMERCIAL AGGREGATES TRANSPORTATION AND SALES, LLC, aDelaware limited liability company 

THE FULTON LAND AND TIMBER COMPANY, a Pennsylvania corporation 

GEORGE F. PETTINOS, INC., a Delaware corporation 

OTTAWA SILICA COMPANY, a Delaware corporation 

PENNSYLVANIA GLASS SAND CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation 

STONE MATERIALS COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                             194
<SECURITIES>                                       306
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,750
<ALLOWANCES>                                        74
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,372
<PP&E>                                           3,701
<DEPRECIATION>                                     631
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  33,125
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,964
<BONDS>                                          3,753
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           805
<OTHER-SE>                                      15,342
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    33,125
<SALES>                                          7,373
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,373
<CGS>                                            4,281
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,281
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   844
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    19
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 204
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    763
<INCOME-TAX>                                       461
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                157
<DISCONTINUED>                                     628
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    (5)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       780
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.08


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 908 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 908

     To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to specify that 
imprisonment for reentering the United States after removal subsequent 
 to a conviction for a felony shall be under circumstances that stress 
strenuous work and sparse living conditions, if the alien is convicted 
                  of another felony after the reentry.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 25, 2003

 Mr. Rohrabacher introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to specify that 
imprisonment for reentering the United States after removal subsequent 
 to a conviction for a felony shall be under circumstances that stress 
strenuous work and sparse living conditions, if the alien is convicted 
                  of another felony after the reentry.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SPECIFICATION OF CIRCUMSTANCES OF IMPRISONMENT.

    Section 276(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
1326(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``For purposes of paragraphs (1) and (2), any term of imprisonment 
imposed on an alien whose removal was subsequent to a conviction for 
commission of a felony shall be under circumstances that stress 
strenuous work and humane, but sparse, living conditions and omit 
educational or rehabilitation programs that might otherwise apply to 
the alien, if the alien is convicted for commission of another felony 
after the reentry or attempt described in subsection (a)(2).''.
                                 <all>
```