alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodrigo GUEVARA-OSUNA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-50592.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Oct. 7, 2010.

Filed Nov. 19, 2010.

Joseph Orabona, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Bridget Lynn Kennedy, Esquire, Trial, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: FISHER and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and STROM, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska, sitting by designation.

*122MEMORANDUM **

Rodrigo Guevara-Osuna (“Guevara”), a native of Mexico, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d) to dismiss an indictment charging him with being a deported alien found in the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b). The motion to dismiss was based on an allegedly invalid deportation order. Specifically, Guevara claimed his immigration judge (“IJ”) inadequately advised him of his eligibility for relief from deportation pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (1991) (“§ 212(c)”). He argued that he was eligible for relief, the IJ violated his due process rights by failing to inform him of his eligibility, and he suffered prejudice as a result. We affirm.

A motion to dismiss based on the collateral attack of an underlying deportation order is reviewed de novo. *United States v. Ubaldo-Figueroa,*364 F.3d 1042, 1047 (9th Cir.2004). The district court’s findings of fact in connection with a motion to dismiss are reviewed for clear error. *United States v. Medina-Villa,*567 F.3d 507, 511 (9th Cir.2009).

Assuming a due process violation, Guevara has not suffered prejudice. To establish prejudice, Guevara is required to show “unusual or outstanding equities,” because Guevara had committed “a succession of criminal acts which together establish a pattern of serious criminal misconduct.” *In re Edwards,*20 I. & N. Dec. 191, 195-96 (BIA 1990). In light of the heightened standard, Guevara has not shown that “an IJ could have concluded that his potential claim for relief from deportation would be ‘plausible.’ ” *United States v. Pallares-Galan,*359 F.3d 1088, 1104 (9th Cir.2004). Guevara has shown only typical equities— longstanding residence in the United States, family ties in the United States and some employment in the United States— rather than unusual or outstanding equities. These favorable considerations, moreover, would be weighed against the substantial adverse factors that would have gone into the § 212(c) analysis, particularly his pattern of criminal conduct and lack of documented rehabilitation. It is therefore highly unlikely he would have been granted § 212(c) relief from deportation. Thus, he has not established prejudice. *See, e.g., United States v. GonzalezValerio,*342 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir.2003). We accordingly affirm the district court’s denial of Guevara’s motion to dismiss the indictment under § 1326(d).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid*123ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov","title":"Office of Budget - Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"IovEK1Z2n8\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/aboutus\/agency-departments\/budget\/\">Office of Budget<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/aboutus\/agency-departments\/budget\/embed\/#?secret=IovEK1Z2n8\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Office of Budget” — Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service\" data-secret=\"IovEK1Z2n8\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/* <![CDATA[ *\/\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n\/* ]]> *\/\n<\/script>\n"}
* Pursuant to 5th C I R

. 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 C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-31076

Summary Calendar

HOUSTON McMANUS,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

MIKE GILLIAM, Warden, Winn Correctional Center

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

(97-CV-678)

May 28, 1998

Before JOHNSON, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Houston McManus, Louisiana prisoner #319024, appeals the

district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ

of habeas corpus. The district court granted a certificate of

appealability (COA) on the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence

supporting McManus’s forcible rape conviction.

In his appellate brief, McManus does not address the

sufficiency of the evidence issue. Because he failed to address2

this issue, McManus has abandoned the only issue before this court.

See Yohey v. Collins

, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993); B rinkmann

v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner

, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.

1987). However, after a careful review of the record, we find that

even if McManus had adequa tely briefed the issue, viewing the

evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational

trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the

forcible rape offense beyond a reasonable doubt. S ee Jackson v.

Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979).

For the first time on appeal, McManus argues that the

prosecution withheld the results of various tests in violation of

Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963). McManus contends that

the results of these tests were exculpatory. McManus also contends

that the district court erred in denying his § 2254 petition

without first obtaining the results of the tests. Because the

district court did not grant a COA for either of these issu es,

these issues are not reviewable on appeal. S ee 28 U.S.C. §

2253(c)(1); Lackey v. Johnson , 116 F.3d 149, 151 (5th Cir. 1997).

APPEAL DISMISSED.
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

(PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE AND FINANCIAL OFFICER)



In connection with
the Quarterly Report of SourcingLink.net, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2003 (the Report), I, Marcel van Heesewijk, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Vice President of Sales of the
Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



|(1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d)); 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 17, 2004



/s/ Marcel van HeesewijkMarcel van HeesewijkChairman of the Board of Directors(Principal Executive and Financial Officer)
**Exhibit 31.4**

**Certification**

 

I, Jeffrey V. Zellmer, the principalfinancial officer of Silicon Graphics, Inc., certify that:

 

1)             Ihave reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Silicon Graphics, Inc.

 

2)            Based on my knowledge, thisreport does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report.

 

 
| By:    | /s/ Jeffery V. Zellmer                             |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Jeffrey V. Zellmer                                 |
|   | Senior Vice President and  Chief Financial Officer |

 

Dated: October 27, 2003

 

----
##### 



Exhibit 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

EXHIBIT 21.1

REGISTRANTS SUBSIDIARIES

The following table sets forth, at June 30, 2003, the Registrants
subsidiaries and their respective incorporation jurisdictions. The Registrant,
or a subsidiary of the Registrant, owns 100% of the voting securities of each
of the subsidiaries listed below.

|                                         |  |                        |  | 
|---------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------- |  | 
|SUBSIDIARIES                             |  | STATE OF INCORPORATION
|                                         |  |                       
|Continucare Home Health of Florida, Inc. |  | Florida               
|                                         |  |                        |  | 
|Continucare Managed Care, Inc.           |  | Florida               
|                                         |  |                        |  | 
|Continucare Medical Management, Inc.     |  | Florida               
|                                         |  |                        |  | 
|Continucare Payment Corporation          |  | Florida               
|                                         |  |                        |  | 
|Maxicare, Inc.                           |  | Delaware              
|                                         |  |                        |  | 
|Maxicare Select, Inc.                    |  | Florida               
|                                         |  |                        |  | 
|Sunset Harbor Home Health, Inc.          |  | Florida
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 23

- 00812

- CR

Ex parte Patricia Betts

FROM THE 368TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY
NO. 22

- 0975

- K368 , THE HONORABLE RICK J. KENNON , JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Patricia Betts has filed a motion to dismiss her appeal. The motion is

signed by both appellant and her attorney. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a). We g rant the motion

and dismiss the appeal. See id

.

__________ ________________________________ Chari L. Kelly , Justice

Before Justices Baker, Triana, and Kelly

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: January 31, 2024

D o Not Publish
Opinion issued May 7 , 20 24

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 23
- 00 952
- CV

——————————— ANTOINETTE RAO , Appella nt

V. CROSBY APTS. LLC , Appell e e
On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 3

Harris County , Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 1215566

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Antoinette Rao ha s failed to timely file a brief. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.6( a ) ( governing time to file brief ), 38.8(a) (governing failure of appellant to file brief). After being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant did not adequately respond. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.3(b) (allowing involuntary dismissal2

of case). We dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution for failure to timely file a brief. We dismiss any pending motions as moot

. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Guerra and Farris

.
#### Carlos F. BASTIDAS BARRON, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-74979.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*492Submitted May 20, 2008.*

Filed May 21, 2008.

Charles E. Nichol, Esq., Law Office of Charles E. Nichol, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, David V. Bernal, Attorney, Regina Byrd, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: PREGERSON, TASHIMA, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Carlos F. Bastidas Barron, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for suspension of deportation. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the IJ’s continuous physical presence determination for substantial evidence. *Vera-Villegas v. INS,*330 F.3d 1222, 1230 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Bastidas Barron did not demonstrate seven years of continuous physical presence where the record contains a Notice and Request for Disposition form, printed in English and Spanish and signed by Bastidas Barron, stating that he was giving up his right to a hearing before an IJ and agreeing to return to Mexico. *See Vasquez-Lopez v. Ashcroft,*343 F.3d 961, 974 (9th Cir.2003) (per curiam).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
* 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 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-51026

Summary Calendar

 

CHRISTOPHER SEPEDA,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

LESTER E. FLEMING, Warden,

Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-97-CV-602

- - - - - - - - - -

August 10, 1998

Before DUHE’, DeMOSS and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Christopher Sepeda, federal prisoner # 61190-080, appeals

the district court’s denial as moot of his application for writ

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In Venegas v.

Henman, 126 F.3d 760, 762 (5th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S.

Ct. 1679 (1998), this court addressed the issue of sentence

reductions for inmates who completed substance abuse treatment

programs. Specifically, we concluded that it was within the

BOP’s discretion to deny a sentence reduction to inmates with a
No. 97-51026

-2-

sentencing guideline enhancement for possession of a firearm in

relation to a drug trafficking crime. See id. 764-65. 

The Bureau of Prisons’ exclusion of

felon-in-possession of a weapon convictions

and drug convictions with enhanced sentences

due to possession of a weapon from

eligibility for early release after substance

abuse treatment is consistent with the letter

and spirit of the Bureau’s authority as

derived from section 3621(e). The loss of

the mere opportunity to be considered for

discretionary early release is too

speculative to constitute a deprivation of a

constitutionally protected liberty interest. 

Id. at 765 (citing Luken v. Scott, 71 F.3d 192, 193 (5th Cir.

1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 1690 (1996)). 

Given the holding in Venegas, Sepeda has not presented an

issue of constitutional dimension. It is on this basis that the

dismissal of his § 2241 application is affirmed. See Bickford v.

International Speedway Corp., 654 F.2d 1028, 131 (5th Cir. 1981). 

Respondent’s motion to dismiss the appeal as moot is DENIED.

AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    Exhibit 3.45
                            CERTIFICATE OF FORMATION
                                       OF
                     ACUTE EXTRACORPOREAL SERVICES, L.L.C.



FIRST:  The name of the limited liability company is ACUTE EXTRACORPOREAL
        SERVICES, L.L.C. (the "Company").

SECOND: The address of the Company's registered office in the State of Delaware
        is 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801 in the county of New
        Castle. The name of the Company's registered agent is The Corporation
        Trust Company.

THIRD:  The latest date on which the Company is to dissolve is December 31,
        2050.

FOURTH: The debts, obligations and liabilities of the Company, whether arising
        in contract, tort or otherwise, shall be solely the debts, obligations
        and liabilities of the Company; and no member or manager of the Company
        shall be obligated personally for any such debt, obligation or liability
        of the Company solely by reason of being a member or acting as a manager
        of the Company.


     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate of
Formation of ACUTE EXTRACORPOREAL SERVICES, L.L.C. this 1st day of December,
1998.

                                              /s/ Margaret M. Scholand       
                                       ---------------------------------------
                                       Margaret M. Scholand, Authorized Person
Multi-MediaD2016-11-01T17:33:17-04:00

## Multi-Media

- Resources
- FMCS Calendar
- Forms & Applications    - Arbitration
  - Notice to FMCS of Upcoming Collective Bargaining (F-7)
  - FOIA Requests 
- Documents and Data
- Multi-Media    - FMCS 101 Video Series
  - Listen to the Conflict Resolutionary Podcast      - Learn about the podcast
    - Episodes 
  - Speeches & Presentations 
- FAQs
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                                  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 American Oriental Bioengineering,
Inc. (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on the date hereof
(the "Report"), the undersigned officer of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of her knowledge and belief:

         i.       the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and will be furnished to the SEC or its staff
upon request.


/s/ Yanchun Li
---------------------------------------
Yanchun Li
Acting Chief Financial Officer
August 15, 2005




This Certification of Acting Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 is not "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 but is instead furnished as provided by
applicable rules of the Securities Exchange Commission.
Exhibit 5.13

CONSENT OF PITEAU ASSOCIATES ENGINEERING LTD.

Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F
for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the Annual Report) of New Gold Inc. (the Company), filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

We hereby consent to the references to our name under the heading Interests of Experts in the Companys Annual Information Form and to
all other references to our name included or incorporated by reference in the Annual Report.



|                                   |  |                        |  | 
|---------------------------------- |  | ---------------------- |  | 
|PITEAU ASSOCIATES ENGINEERING LTD.
|                                   |  |                       
|By:                                |  | /s/ Andrew Holmes      |  | 
|Name:                              |  | Andrew Holmes, P. Eng. |  | 
|Title:                             |  | Vice President         |  | 

March 28, 2007
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 26, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 66491]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-31648]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Declaration of Economic Injury Disaster #9N84]


State of Wyoming; Disaster Loan Area

    Park County and the contiguous Counties of Big Horn, Fremont, Hot 
Springs, Teton and Washakie in the State of Wyoming; and Carbon, 
Gallatin and Park Counties in the State of Montana constitute an 
economic injury disaster loan area as a result of a forest fire that 
closed the east entrance to Yellowstone National Park from July 29 
through August 13, 2001. Eligible small businesses and small 
agricultural cooperatives without credit available elsewhere may file 
applications for economic injury assistance as a result of this 
disaster until the close of business on September 17, 2002 at the 
address listed below or other locally announced locations:
    U.S. Small Business Administration, Disaster Area 3 Office, 4400 
Amon Carter Blvd., Suite 102, FT. Worth, TX 76155.
    The interest rate for eligible small businesses and small 
agricultural cooperatives is 4 percent. The number assigned for 
economic injury for this disaster is 9N8400 for the State of Wyoming 
and 9N8500 for the State of Montana.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 59002)

    Dated: December 17, 2001.
Hector V. Barreto,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 01-31648 Filed 12-21-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

*June 25, 2014*

[Cite as *06/25/2014 Case Announcements*#3, 2014-Ohio-2755.]

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

2014-0472.

#### BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v. Haas.

Marion App. No. 9-13-40, 2014-Ohio-438. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Marion County.

Upon review of the motion for stay of sale, it is ordered by the court that appellee shall file a response, if any, to the motion for stay no later than Wednesday, July 2, 2014.