alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of John Padilla, Appellant, v Christopher Artuz, as Superintendent of Green Haven Correctional Facility, Respondent.

[666 NYS2d 489]

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of a Hearing Officer after a Tier II disciplinary hearing held on September 18, 1995, which was affirmed October 6, 1995, by the Deputy Superintendent of Green Haven Correctional Facility, which found the petitioner guilty of violating institutional rules and imposed a penalty.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the misbehavior report and the hearing evidence provided substantial evidence to support the determination finding him guilty of possession of a weapon and possession of an altered item *(see,*CPLR 7803 [4]; *Matter of Lahey v Kelly,*71 NY2d 135, 140; *300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights,*45 NY2d 176, 181).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Thompson and Luciano, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           1,954
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   54,656
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (32,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    298,663
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               339,078
<PP&E>                                         314,016
<DEPRECIATION>                                (153,430)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 650,940
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          815,564
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       183,693
<OTHER-SE>                                    (602,188)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   650,940
<SALES>                                         61,607
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                61,607
<CGS>                                           36,727
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  381,402
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              21,809
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (378,331)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (378,331)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (378,331)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.02)


</TABLE>
#### Ferdinandus Hudi SANTOSA; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-72593.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 21, 2011.

R. Wayne McMillan, Law Office of R. Wayne McMillan, Pasadena, CA, for Petitioners.

*644Craig Alan Newell, Jr., Esquire, Trial, James Arthur Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Ferdinandus Hudi Santosa and his family, natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Wak*kary v. Holder,*558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that petitioners failed to establish past persecution because the harassment and discrimination petitioners experienced as a result of their Christian religion did not rise to the level of persecution, *see id.*at 1059-60, and Indonesian authorities were able to control the protesters at petitioners’ 1999 concert, *see Nahrvani v. Gonzales,*399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir.2005). In addition, we reject petitioners’ contention that the BIA erred because it did not expressly state it considered the harm of their past experiences in Indonesia cumulatively. *See Najmabadi v. Holder,*597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir.2010) (“[t]he [BIA] does not have to write an exegesis on every contention.”) (internal quotes omitted).

Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s finding that petitioners failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution because they did not show sufficient individualized risk, *of. Sael v. Ashcroft,*386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir.2004), and they failed to establish a pattern or practice of persecution by forces the government was unable or unwilling to control, *see Lolong v. Gonzales,*484 F.3d 1173, 1180 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc). Accordingly, petitioners’ asylum claim fails.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

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

# AGENCY:

Department of Energy.

# ACTION:

Designation of Performance Review Board Chair.

# SUMMARY:

This notice provides the Performance Review Board Chair designee for the Department of Energy.

This listing supersedes all previously published lists of Performance Review Board Chair.

# DATES:

This appointment is applicable as of September 30, 2017: Dennis M. Miotla.

      ( print page 49358)    
Issued in Washington, DC, on September 26, 2017.

Erin S. Moore,

Director, Office of Corporate Executive Management, Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer.

[FR Doc. 2017-23166 Filed 10-24-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Amazon Biotech, Inc., a Utah
corporation, (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending April 30,
2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Mechael Kanovsky, Ph.D., Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify the following pursuant to Section 18, U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:

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.



/s/ Mechael Kanovsky, Ph.D.
---------------------------
Mechael Kanovsky, Ph.D.,
Chief Financial Officer
June 14, 2005
#### David LOSOYA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Warden WOODFORD; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 09-17528.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 18, 2011.

David Losoya, Corcoran, CA, pro se.

Michael James Quinn, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner David Losoya appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action alleging violations of his constitutional rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment. *Bruce v. Ylst,*351 F.3d 1283, 1287 (9th Cir.2003). We review de novo the district court’s dismissal based on failure to exhaust, and for clear error its factual findings. *O’Guinn v. Lovelock Corr. Ctr.,*502 F.3d 1056, 1059 (9th Cir.2007). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record, *id.,*and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on Losoya’s due process claim because he failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants are retaining him in the Security Housing Unit with insufficient evidence and denying him periodic reviews. *See Bruce,*351 F.3d at 1287-88 (prison gang validation proceeding subject to the “some evidence” standard).

The district court properly dismissed Losoya’s four remaining claims to the extent that they are based on events after February 2001 because he failed to properly exhaust the prison grievance process prior to filing suit. *See Ngo v. Woodford,*539 F.3d 1108, 1109-10 (9th Cir.2008) (affirming dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and rejecting continuing violations theory). To the extent that Losoya’s four remaining claims are based on events prior to February 2001, dismissal was proper because they are time-barred. *See Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish,*382 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir.2004) (explaining that, for § 1983 claims, federal courts borrow the applicable state’s statute of limitations for personal injury claims); *Knox v. Davis,*260 F.3d 1009, 1013 (9th Cir.2001) (a § 1983 “ ‘claim accrues when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of the action’ ” (citation omitted)); *see also*Cal. Civ.Proc.Code § 335.1 (two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims); Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 352.1(a) (prisoners entitled to two years of statutory tolling).

*623Losoya’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

We construe Losoya’s “Judicial Notice,” received on August 12, 2010, as his reply brief and order it filed. We decline to consider issues raised for the first time in his reply brief. *See Smith v. Marsh,*194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.1999).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT JOHN GAILAN YATES-BAILEY, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D16-2789 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ________________________________ )

Opinion filed June 30, 2017. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Lisa D. Campbell, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Pamela H. Izakowitz, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM. In this Anders 1 appeal, we find no error in Mr. Yates-Bailey's judgment or sentence; however, we remand to t he circuit court to correct a scrivener's error in the order of revocation. The order states: "Found in Violation: Re voke probation and

1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).- 2 - sentence the offender to 15 years['] Prison on [Count] 1 and 5 years['] Prison on [Count] 2." Although the remaining record is clear on this point, the order of revocation fails to correctly recite that Yates-Bailey was found to have violated c ondition five of his probation—failing to live without violating any law. According ly, the order or revocation of probation is remanded for the circuit court to correct the s crivener's error to reflect the violation of condition five. Affirmed; remanded to correct scrivener's error.

NORTHCUTT, SILBERMAN, and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.
Exhibit 31.2


Certification of Chief Financial Officer


Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


I, Anna Brunelle, certify that:


1) I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of TiVo 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.


Date:  April 18, 2012





/s/    ANNA BRUNELLEAnna BrunelleChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
December 22, 2016

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

AGAR CORPORATION, INC., Appellant

NO. 14-15-00134-CV V.

ELECTRO CIRCUITS INTERNATIONAL, LLC AND SURESH PARIKH, 

Appellees

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment signed January 20, 2015, was heard 

on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find no error in 

the judgment. We order the judgment of the court below AFFIRMED.

We order that each party shall pay its costs by reason of this appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
<PAGE>


32.1              Certification of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief
                  Financial Officer of VOXEL pursuant to Section 906 of
                  the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002


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

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of VOXEL (the "Company") for
the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned Michael Anthony,
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of VOXEL, 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) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: June 17, 2008

                                      /s/Michael Anthony
                                      ----------------------
                                      Michael Anthony
                                      Chief Executive Officer

                                      /s/ Michael Anthony
                                      ----------------------
                                      Michael Anthony
                                      Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6207

WILLIAM NATHANIEL AUSTIN, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

WILLIAM SMITH, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE

STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Herbert N. Maletz, Senior Judge, sitting by

designation. (CA-95-649-MJG)

Submitted: May 29, 1997 Decided: June 5, 1997

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Nathaniel Austin, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph

Curran, Jr., Kathryn Grill Graeff, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal; to the extent that a certificate of appealability is required, we deny such a certificate. We

dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Austin

v. Smith, No. CA-95-649-MJG (D. Md. Jan. 18, 1996). 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
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 206 (Thursday, October 26, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 49606]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23295]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL18-17-000]


Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.; Notice of 
Institution of Section 206 Proceeding and Refund Effective Date

    On October 19, 2017, the Commission issued an order in Docket No. 
EL18-17-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 
U.S.C. 824e (2012), instituting an investigation into whether the Open 
Access Transmission, Energy and Operating Reserve Markets Tariff of 
Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. may be unjust, 
unreasonable, unduly discriminatory or preferential. Midcontinent 
Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 161 FERC 61,076 (2017).
    The refund effective date in Docket No. EL18-17-000, established 
pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication 
of this notice in the Federal Register.
    Any interested person desiring to be heard in Docket No. EL18-17-
000 must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as 
appropriate, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First 
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rule 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214, within 21 
days of the date of issuance of the order.

    Dated: October 19, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-23295 Filed 10-25-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
---

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Augusta Resource Corporation
  (the Company) on Form 40-F for the period ended December 31, 2006
  as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
  Report), I, Bruce Nicol, 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) or 15(d) of
  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

| | March 1, 2006 | /s/ Bruce
      Nicol  
| | ------------- | -----------------------
| |               |                        
| |               | Bruce Nicol            
| |               | Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
  906 has been provided to Augusta Resource Corporation and will be retained by
  Augusta Resource Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
  or its staff upon request.

---
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3565 

To suspend temporarily the duty on dry adhesive copolyamide pellets. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on dry adhesive copolyamide 

pellets. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. DRY ADHESIVE COPOLYAMIDE PELLETS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘9902.01.00 Piperazine co-polymerized 

copolyamide resin high-temperature melt adhesive pellets (CAS Nos. 118106–10– 

8, 1000189–84–3, or 

1000189–29–6) (provided 

for in subheading 

3809.10.00 or 3908.90.70) Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3565 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 

3 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

4 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 21, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-51691

c/w No. 07-50060

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE ARMANDO LUCERO-RAMIREZ

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:06-CR-199-ALL

USDC No. 1:06-CR-219-ALL

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Armando Lucero-Ramirez (Lucero) appeals his guilty-plea conviction

of, and sentence for, violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326 by being found in the United

States without permission after deportation. He argues, in light of Apprendi v.

New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), that the 57-month term of imprisonment

imposed in his case exceeds the statutory maximum sentence allowed for the
No. 06-51691

c/w No. 07-50060

2

§ 1326(a) offense charged in his indictment. He challenges the constitutionality

of § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony and aggravated felony convictions as

sentencing factors rather than elements of the offense that must be found by a

jury.

Lucero’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v.

United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although he contends that

Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme

Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi, we have

repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres

remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.

2005); Rangel-Reyes v. United States, 126 S. Ct. 2873 (2006); United States v.

Pineda-Arrellano, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 16925 (5th Cir. July 17, 2007). Lucero

properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres

and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.

Lucero’s appeal of his revocation of supervised release was consolidated

with the instant appeal. He has not, however, raised any argument with respect

to these proceedings. Any such claim is thus deemed abandoned. See Yohey v.

Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). 

The judgments of the district court are AFFIRMED. The Government’s

motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED. The Government’s motion for an

extension of time to file a brief is DENIED.