alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### XIAN LIN CHEN, a.k.a. Jessica Ch Lee, a.k.a. Xiangling Chen, a.k.a. Xian Lian Chen, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-74510.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*748Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.*

Filed March 10, 2011.

Gary J. Yerman, Esquire, Law Office of Gary J. Yerman, New York, NY, for Petitioner.

Carol Federighi, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Andrew B. Insenga, OIL, Jonathan Aaron Robbins, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Xian Lin Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, *Lin v. Holder,*588 F.3d 981, 984 (9th Cir.2009), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Chen’s motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed nearly four years after the BIA’s December 19, 2002, order dismissing the underlying appeal, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Chen failed to show changed circumstances in China in order to qualify for the regulatory exception to the filing deadline, *see id.*§ 1003.2(c)(3)(h); *Lin,*588 F.3d at 988-89 (record did not show material change in enforcement of family planning laws sufficient to establish changed country conditions and excuse an untimely motion to reopen). Contrary to Chen’s contention, the BIA considered the evidence she submitted and applied the correct prima facie eligibility requirement. *See Toufighi v. Mukasey,*538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir.2008).

Chen’s contention that she should have been permitted to file a successive asylum application under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D) is foreclosed by *Chen v. Mukasey,*524 F.3d 1028, 1032 (9th Cir.2008) (an alien subject to a final removal order may only reapply for asylum through a successful motion to reopen).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      Exhibit 23




                               CONSENT OF KPMG LLP




The Board of Directors
Florsheim Group Inc.:

We consent to the use of our report dated February 15, 1999, on the consolidated
balance sheets of Florsheim Group Inc. and subsidiaries as of January 2, 1999
and January 3, 1998, the related consolidated statements of operations and
comprehensive income, cash flows, and shareholders' equity for the years ended
January 2, 1999, January 3, 1998, and December 28, 1996 and related financial
statement schedule, in the January 2, 1999 annual report on Form 10-K of
Florsheim Group Inc.








KPMG  LLP
Chicago, Illinois
March 30, 1999





                                       61
#### FELIPE MULERO *v.*COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

(AC 32392)

Lavine, Alvord and Bishop, Js.

Argued October 19

officially released November 8, 2011

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF SARBANES  OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In
connection with the accompanying Annually Report on Form 10-K of
Indiantown Cogeneration, L.P. for the year ended December 31, 2003, I, P.
Chrisman Iribe, President of Indiantown Cogeneration, L.P., hereby certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:  (1)
    
    such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2003 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 such Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2003 fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of Indiantown
Cogeneration, L.P. March 29, 2004
    
    /s/ P. CHRISMAN IRIBEP. Chrisman IribePresidentIndiantown Cogeneration, L.P.
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Indiantown Cogeneration, L.P. and will be retained by Indiantown
Cogeneration, L.P. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request
EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

To the Shareholders and Board of Directors of
First American Railways, Inc.

         We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement No. 333-19407 on Form S-8 of First American Railways, Inc. (the
"Company"), of our report dated January 14, 1997, except for Note 9 which is as
of March 13, 1997, relating to the financial statements of the Company,
appearing in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended
December 31, 1996.


                                                BDO Seidman, LLP
                                                --------------------------------
Miami, Florida                                  BDO SEIDMAN, LLP
March 27, 1997
Exhibit 32.1





ZENEX INTERNATIONAL, INC.




**Certification by 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 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Zenex International, Inc. (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ron Carte, 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, to the best of 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 result of the operations of the Company.





****By:
/s/ Ron CarteRon CarteChief Executive Officer
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.                  

###### National Labor Relations Board

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Roxanne Rothschild, Deputy Executive Secretary, 1015 Half Street SE., Washington, DC 20570. Telephone: (202) 273-2917.

Dated: October 11, 2017.

Roxanne Rothschild,

Deputy Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board.

[FR Doc. 2017-22371 Filed 10-11-17; 4:15 pm]

 BILLING CODE 7545-01-P
Exhibit 10.1


 


 








LEASE AGREEMENT












This Lease is made this 1st day of November, 2014 by and between Velara Global (hereinafter "Landlord") and Global Holding International(hereinafter "Tenant"). In consideration for the mutual promises and covenants contained herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the parties hereby agree as follows:






1. The Landlord subleases to the Tenant and the Tenant rents from the Landlord the following described premises: office space located at 4921 Birch Street Suite 110, Newport Beach California 92660.





2. The term of the Lease shall be for one year commencing November 1, 2014 and ending on October 31, 2015.





3. The Tenant shall pay to Landlord as rent $1,200 per year in advance of moving in.






4. This Lease is subject to all present or future mortgages affecting the premises.





5. Tenant shall use and occupy the premises only as office space in one area of the office.





6. The Tenant shall not make any alterations, additions or improvements to the premises without the prior written consent of the Landlord.





7. The Landlord, at his own expense, shall furnish the following utilities or amenities for the benefit of the Tenant: Telephones, desks, chairs, copier and conference room usage.





8. The Tenant, at his own expense, shall furnish the following: computers.





9. The Tenant shall not permit or commit waste to the premises.





10. The Tenant shall comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances codes and laws of all governmental authorities having jurisdiction over the premises.





11. The Tenant shall not sublet or assign the premises nor allow any other person or business to use or occupy the premises without the prior written consent of the Landlord, which consent may not be unreasonably withheld.





12. At the end of the term of this Lease, the Tenant shall surrender and deliver up the premises in the same condition (subject to any additions, alterations or improvements, if any) as presently exists, reasonable wear and tear excluded.





 13. Upon default in any term or condition of this Lease, the Landlord shall have the right to undertake any or all other remedies permitted by Law.


 


14. This Lease shall be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of, the parties, their heirs, successors, and assigns.





 Signed this 1st day of November, 2014.


	
 

	
 

	
 


	
/s/ Bernard Sjauta

	
 

	
/s/ Grace Hung


	
 

	
 

	
 


	
Tenant; Global Holding Internatinal

	
 

	
Landlord, Velara Global


	
Bernard Sjauta, President

	
 

	
Grace Hung President
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George Steven SCANTLAND, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-2544.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

April 24, 2008.

Before: DAUGHTREY, COOK, and FARRIS *, Circuit Judges.

*

 The Hon. Jerome Farris, Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

In this direct appeal from his convictions on multiple counts of drug possession with intent to distribute, possession of firearms by a convicted felon, and maintenance of a drug-involved premises, defendant George Steven Scantland raises only a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, he alleges that his trial counsel was ineffective in negotiating a plea bargain, preparing him to testify, pursuing defense theories that ultimately failed, and failing to bring a pre-trial motion to challenge the police search warrant. Because most of these allegations concern questions of defense strategy and because the trial record clearly provides an insufficient basis upon which to review them, we decline to address the various claims of ineffective assistance of counsel set out in the defendant’s appellate brief. We further note that these issues are more appropriately addressed in a post-conviction motion to vacate, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Indeed, with regard to such claims, we have repeatedly observed:

> “As a general rule, a defendant may not raise ineffective assistance of counsel claims for the first time on direct appeal, since there has not been an opportunity to develop and include in the record evidence bearing on the merits of the allegations.” *United States v. Wunder,*919 F.2d 34, 37 (6th Cir.1990); *see also United States v. Brown,*332 F.3d 363, 368 (6th Cir.2003). This court has “ ‘routinely concluded that such claims are best brought by a defendant in a post-conviction proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 so that the parties can develop an adequate record on this issue.’ ” *Brown,*332 F.3d at 369 (quoting *United States v. Aguwa,*123 F.3d 418, 423 (6th Cir.1997)); *see also Massaro v. United States,*538 U.S. 500, 504-05, 123 S.Ct. 1690, 155 L.Ed.2d 714 (2003).

*United States v. Martinez,*430 F.3d 317, 338 (6th Cir.2005). In *Martinez,*we further pointed out that because of “the fact-specific nature of [ineffective assistance of counsel] claims and the absence of a record directed at whether counsel’s perform*423anee was deficient,” a defendant is better served by fleshing out his claims in a post-conviction motion and submitting the evidence to support those claims at a hearing in district court, rather than by having us attempt to rule on allegations that have little support in the record as presented. *Id.*

In the absence of any currently reviewable challenges to the validity of the defendant’s convictions, we AFFIRM the judgement of the district court.
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 amended Quarterly Report of Nano Mask, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Douglas Heath, President and Principal 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 to the best of 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.   Dated:  February 10, 2010   /s/ Douglas Heath Douglas Heath President/Principal Executive Officer
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. IS17-522-000]

On September 29, 2017, a notice was issued stating that a technical conference will be held to address the effect of the tariff changes proposed by Colonial Pipeline Company in its June 23, 2017 filing in this docket. The technical conference will be held on Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 9:00 a.m., in a room to be designated at the offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

For interested persons who cannot attend the technical conference, a call-in number has been established. Dial in from your phone:

From within local Wash, DC area 202-502-6888

From outside Local Wash, DC area 1-877-857-1347

Meeting ID: 0255

Dated: October 12, 2017.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2017-22530 Filed 10-17-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Exhibit 31.1
SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

I, Douglas K. Beplate, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report of Emergency Filtration Products,
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 small
business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer'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 small business
issuer 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 small business issuer,
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;
 (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer'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
 (c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of
the small business issuer'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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

Date: May 14, 2004

/s/Douglas K. Beplate
Douglas K. Beplate, Principal Executive Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maria Aide DELGADO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-30403

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 6, 2011.

Camille Ann Domingue, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Brett L. Grayson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Lafayette, LA, Cristina Walker, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

George Frazier, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before WIENER, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Marie Aide Delgado has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Delgado has filed a response. Her motions to supplement her response are GRANTED.

The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Delgado’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; such claims generally “cannot be resolved on direct appeal when the claim has not been raised before the district court since no opportunity existed to develop the record on the merits of the allegations.” *United States v. Cantwell,*470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Delgado’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, the APPEAL IS DISMISSED, and all other outstanding motions are DENIED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### In the Matter of Dorothy Burch, Appellant, v New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, Respondent.

[987 NYS2d 348]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered March 19, 2013, which granted respondent’s cross motion to dismiss, as time-barred, the petition in this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking annulment of its determination, dated December 5, 2011, terminating petitioner’s employment, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the cross motion denied, and the matter remanded for further proceedings.

Ordinarily, where the employment of an at-will employee, like petitioner, is terminated, the four-month statute of limitations applicable in article 78 proceedings (CPLR 217) begins to run from the date of the termination, notwithstanding the availability of optional administrative review proceedings *(see Matter of Frasier v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y.,*71 NY2d 763 [1988]). However, where an administrative agency “ create [s] . . . ambiguity and [the] impression of nonfinality,” that ambiguity regarding finality is to be resolved against the agency *(Mundy v Nassau County Civ. Serv. Commn.,*44 NY2d 352, 358 [1978]).

In the instant case, in informing petitioner by letter dated December 5, 2011, that she was terminated and advising her of the possibility of review under Operating Procedure 20-39, respondent employed precisely the same language as that used in the article 78 statute of limitations (CPLR 217) to inform petitioner that the result of that *review*would be “final and binding.” The language of the termination letter tracked that of paragraph V (G) of Operating Procedure 20-39, which provides that “[t]he reviewer’s decision is final and binding, and is not subject to further administrative review.”

We find that, notwithstanding the fact that the letter otherwise conveyed the concrete impact ordinarily associated with finality for statute of limitations purposes *(see Matter of Best Payphones, Inc. v Department of Info. Tech. & Telecom, of City of N.Y.,*5 NY3d 30, 34 [2005]), respondent created sufficient ambiguity as to finality such that the language must be construed against it and the petition must be deemed timely.

Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Moskowitz, DeGrasse, ManzanetDaniels and Kapnick, JJ.