alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-60553

Summary Calendar

DANIEL PAZO-RICANO,

Petitioner

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A074 015 979

Before REAVLEY, JONES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Daniel Pazo-Ricano, a native and citizen of Cuba, petitions this court for 

review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his 

appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) grant of the Department of Homeland 

Security’s (DHS) motion for reconsideration and of the IJ’s denial of his motion 

to reopen. He contends that the IJ and the BIA failed to consider that he was 

eligible for a waiver of inadmissibility pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h) in the 

* 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

April 21, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-60553 Document: 00512603072 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/21/2014
No. 13-60553

light of this court’s decision in Martinez v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 532 (5th Cir. 

2008). Further, Pazo-Ricano contends that his eligibility for a waiver of 

inadmissibility was an exceptional circumstance warranting sua sponte 

reopening and that he was entitled to equitable tolling from the date of the 

Martinez decision until he could consult with counsel and file his motion to 

reopen.

Because Pazo-Ricano seeks review of the decision to deny a motion to 

reopen sua sponte, and because such authority is discretionary, we lack 

jurisdiction. See Ramos-Bonilla v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 216, 219 (5th Cir. 2008); 

Enriquez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 246, 249-50 (5th Cir. 2004). Moreover,

Pazo-Ricano did not argue before the BIA that he was eligible for a waiver of 

inadmissibility in light of Martinez, that his eligibility for a waiver of 

inadmissibility following Martinez was an exceptional circumstance 

warranting reopening, or that he was entitled to equitable tolling between the 

date of the Martinez decision and the filing of his motion to reopen. PazoRicano’s failure to exhaust these issues deprives this court of jurisdiction. See 

Said v. Gonzales, 488 F.3d 668, 670-71 (5th Cir. 2007); Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 

F.3d 132, 137 (5th Cir. 2004).

To the extent that Pazo-Ricano asserts that he seeks review of the BIA’s 

dismissal of his appeal of the IJ’s grant of the respondent’s motion for 

reconsideration, he has presented no argument in support of this issue and, 

thus, has abandoned it for purposes of the petition for review. See Soadjede v. 

Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003); Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy 

Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

PETITION DISMISSED IN PART FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION; 

DENIED IN PART.

2

 Case: 13-60553 Document: 00512603072 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/21/2014
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
LUC INE TRIM , individually and on be ha lf of a ll othe rs sim ila rly situa te d , Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. REWARD ZONE USA LLC ; DOES, 1-10 inc lusive , De fe nda

n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 22-55517 D.C . No. 2:20-c v-01027-SVW -KS
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Ste phe n V. W ilson, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d

June 28, 2023 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : N.R . SM ITH, LEE, a nd VANDYKE, C irc uit Judge s. Pla intiff Luc i ne Trim (Trim ) a ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s pa

rtia l judgm e nt gra

nting a m otion to dism

iss in fa vor of De fe nda

nt, R e ward Zone USA, 

# F IL ED
AUG 8 2023 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).LLC (R e ward Zone ), in a puta t ive c la ss a c t ion la

wsuit brought unde

r the Te le phone C onsum e r Prote c tion Ac t (TC PA). B e c a use the distric t c ourt c e rtifie d its inte rloc utory

orde r pursua

nt to Fe de ra l R

ule of C ivil Proc e dure 54(b), we have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1291. S e e SEC v . C ap. C o nsultants LLC

, 453 F.3d 1166, 1174 (9th C ir. 2006) (pe r c uriam ). W e re v ie w de novo a distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l for fa ilure to sta t e a c la im unde r Fe de ra l R

ule of C ivil Proc e dure 12(b)(6). Se eBrune ttev . Humane Soc ’yof Ve ntura C

nty
. , 294 F.3d 1205, 1209 (9th C ir. 2002). W e a ffirm on the first c a

use of a c t ion. Trim ’ s a rgum e nt in tha

t c a use of a c t ion is fore c lose d by our de c ision in Borde n v . e

Financ ial , LLC , 53 F.4th 1230 (9th C ir. 2022). In Borde n , we he ld tha t
a sy s te m c onstitute s an a

utodia le r re gula

te d by the TC PA only

if it “ g e ne rate [s]
and dia l[s] random

or se que ntia l te le phone num be rs.” Id. at 1231 (e m

pha sis
re m ove d). B e c a

use Trim c onc e de s tha

t the subje c t dia ling e quipm e nt did not ge ne ra te te l e phone num

be rs using a

random or se q ue ntia l num

be r ge ne rat or, R e ward Zone ’ s te xt m e ssa ge s we re not se nt via use of a n a utodia le r in viola

tion of the T C PA. 1 AFFIRM E D.

1 W e de ny

the Ele c tronic Priva c y

Inform ation C e nte r and Na tiona l C onsum e r C e nte r’ s m otion to be c om e am ic us c uria e a s m oot. (Dkt. 14). W e a lso de ny a s m oot Trim ’ s initial pe tition for re he a ring e n ba nc . (Dkt. 28). 2
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3427 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to include expenses for certain 

nonathletic supplies in the above-the-line deduction for eligible educators, 

and to allow such deduction to interscholastic sports administrators and 

coaches. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 20, 2021 

Mrs. MURPHY of Florida (for herself and Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways 

and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to include 

expenses for certain nonathletic supplies in the abovethe-line deduction for eligible educators, and to allow 

such deduction to interscholastic sports administrators 

and coaches. 

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

3 SECTION 1. UPDATES TO ABOVE-THE-LINE DEDUCTION 

4 FOR EDUCATORS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 62 of the Internal Rev6 enue Code of 1986 is amended— 

7 (1) in subsection (a)(2)(D)— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3427 IH

1 (A) in the header, by adding ‘‘AND OTHER

2 INSTRUCTIONAL SCHOOL PERSONNEL’’ at the 

3 end, 

4 (B) by striking ‘‘(other than nonathletic 

5 supplies for courses of instruction in health or 

6 physical education)’’, and 

7 (C) by striking ‘‘in the classroom’’ and in8 serting ‘‘as part of instructional activity’’, and 

9 (2) in subsection (d)(1), by inserting ‘‘inter10 scholastic sports administrator or coach,’’ after 

11 ‘‘counselor,’’. 

12 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

13 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

14 December 31, 2020. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### Ann Karima GALLANT, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. DEUTSCHE BANK, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 10-1502.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 30, 2010.

Decided: Dec. 3, 2010.

Ann Karima Gallant, Appellant Pro Se. Harry Margerum Johnson, III, Glen Howard Sturtevant, Jr., Hunton & Williams, L.L.P., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ann Karima Gallant appeals the district court’s order denying her motion for entry of default. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Gallant seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable *872interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.*
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 11.01

FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999

                           CARAUSTAR INDUSTRIES, INC.

                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                     (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)
                                  (UNAUDITED)

           COMPUTATION OF BASIC AND DILUTED EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                            THREE MONTHS ENDED    NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                                               SEPTEMBER 30,        SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                            -------------------   -----------------
                                                              1999       1998      1999      1998
                                                            --------   --------   -------   -------
<S>                                                         <C>        <C>        <C>       <C>
Earnings:
  Net income available to common stock....................  $10,055    $12,793    $31,786   $39,301
                                                            -------    -------    -------   -------
Shares:
  Weighted average common shares outstanding..............   25,100     25,402     24,942    25,353
  Dilutive effect of stock options........................      112        137        127       192
                                                            -------    -------    -------   -------
  Average diluted shares outstanding and equivalents......   25,212     25,539     25,069    25,545
                                                            -------    -------    -------   -------
Basic earnings per common share:
  Net income..............................................  $  0.40    $  0.50    $  1.27   $  1.55
                                                            =======    =======    =======   =======
Diluted earnings per common share:
  Net income..............................................  $  0.40    $  0.50    $  1.27   $  1.54
                                                            =======    =======    =======   =======
</TABLE>
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov","title":"FMCS Labor-Management Grants Program Accepts Applications for FY 2016 - Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"KWFY2BJx3C\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/15470-2\/\">FMCS Labor-Management Grants Program Accepts Applications for FY 2016<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/15470-2\/embed\/#?secret=KWFY2BJx3C\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“FMCS Labor-Management Grants Program Accepts Applications for FY 2016” — Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service\" data-secret=\"KWFY2BJx3C\" 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","description":"WASHINGTON, D.C.\u2013 Starting March 1, 2016, the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) is accepting labor-management grants applications for fiscal year 2016 focused on the 21st century economy and its rapidly evolving workplaces. While the Agency will consider applications from plant-level committees, the FMCS especially encourages applications from area-wide, industry or sectoral joint labor-management committees […]"}
Interim Decision #1475 

Kum or LABIANO 

In Visa Petition Proceedings 

A-14241316 

Dedied.by Board April 30, 180 

Since the marriage on September 1, 1964, at Reno, Nevada of petitioner and 

beneficiary, uncle 'and niece, respectively, is void under section 125.290 of 

the Nevada Revised Statutes because within the degree of consanguinity 

prohibited by section 122.020 of the Nevada Revised Statutes, approval of 

the visa petition to accord beneficiary nonquota status on the basis of that 

marriage is revoked. 

' The case comes forward on appeal from the order of the District' 

Direct w, San. Francisco District, dated January 11, 1965 revoking 

the nonquota visa petition previously approved on behalf of the 

beneficiary on October 22, 1964 for the reason that the marriage of 

the parties, who are uncle and niece, is not valid under Nevada law 

and the petition :was approved in error. 

The petitioner, a native of the Philippine Islands, a naturalized _ 

citizen of the United States; 56 years old, seeks nonquota status on 

behalf of the beneficiary, a native and citizen of the Philippine 

Islands, 23 years old. The parties were married on September 1, 

1964 at Reno, Nevada. A prior marriage of the petitioner was 

terminated by a decree of divorce in the Superior Court of the State 

of California for the City and County of San Francisco on, July 

1961. 

A sworn statement was taken from the beneficiary by a Service 

officer on November 9, 1964. She testified that The petitioner is her 

uncle, the brother of her mother, whose maiden name was Mariano. 

She stated that her uncle changed his family name when he applied 

for naturalization. The petitioner and the beneficiary's mother have 

the same common parents, Severo Mariano and Modesto, Paulo. 

Section 122.020 of the Nevada Revised Statutes provides: "1. Male 

persons of the age of 18 years, and female persons of the age of 16 

years, not nearer kin than second cousins or cousins of the half blood, 

200 
interim Decision #1415 

and not having a husband or wife living may be joined. in marriage." 

Section 125.290 of the Nevada Revised Statutes (1957) reads: "The 

following marriages, if celebrated within the state, are void without 

any decree of divorce or annulment or other legal proceedings: 1. All 

marriages which are prohibited b: law because of: (a) Consanguinity between the parties; * * *." 

. The petitioner and the beneficiary in the instant case are uncle 

and niece, respectively. Their marirage is within the degree of consanguinity prohibited by section 122.020: of the 'Nevada Revised . 

Statutes and they do not postess the capacity to enter into a valid 

marriage. Under section 125.290 of the Nevada Revised . Statutes 

the marriage is void. The parties appear to have beau ignorant of 

the provisions of Nevada law but that does not.remedy the defect in 

their marriage. The appeal will be dismissed. mised. 

ORDER: It is ordered. that the appeal from the order of the District Director revoking the approval of the visa petition be and the 

same is hereby dismissed. 

, 201
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING 

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL 

OF FLORIDA 

SECOND DISTRICT 

LONZINE ADAMS, ) 

 ) 

 Appellant, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Case No. 2D15-3524 

 ) 

STATE OF FLORIDA, ) 

 ) 

 Appellee. )

___________________________________) 

Opinion filed June 29, 2016. 

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for 

Sarasota County; Thomas L. Krug, Judge. 

PER CURIAM. 

 Lonzine Adams appeals the order denying as untimely his motion to 

release property. In his motion, Adams stated that law enforcement confiscated 

approximately $493 and a cellphone when he was booked into jail after being arrested 

on charges that were later dismissed. 

 The postconviction court treated Adams' motion as filed under section 

705.105(1), Florida Statutes (2015), and denied it as untimely because more than sixty 

days had elapsed since the conclusion of his criminal proceedings. In support of the 

order, the court attached the State's notice of nolle prosequi. 
 -2-

 Section 705.105(1) provides: 

Title to unclaimed evidence or unclaimed tangible personal 

property lawfully seized pursuant to a lawful investigation in 

the custody of the court or clerk of the court from a criminal 

proceeding or seized as evidence by and in the custody of a 

law enforcement agency shall vest permanently in the law 

enforcement agency 60 days after the conclusion of the 

proceeding. 

 "When summarily denying a motion for return of property pursuant to the 

sixty-day time bar, the trial court must attach those portions of the record showing that 

the property was seized pursuant to a lawful investigation or held as evidence." Burden 

v. State, 890 So. 2d 566, 567 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (citing Cloud v. State, 801 So. 2d 964, 

964 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), and McKinnon v. State, 752 So. 2d 134, 135 (Fla. 2d DCA 

2000)); accord White v. State, 926 So. 2d 473, 474 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). 

 Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the postconviction court to attach 

those portions of the record indicating that the cash and the cellphone were seized and 

held as evidence by law enforcement or that they were seized pursuant to an 

investigation and were in the custody of the court clerk. Otherwise, the court must 

entertain Adams' motion on the merits. See White, 926 So. 2d at 474; Cloud, 801 So. 

2d at 964. 

 Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. 

 

CASANUEVA, KELLY, and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
76 A.3d 536

#### Billie WASHINGTON, Tina Smith, Opal Gibson, Pennsylvania Mental Health Consumers’ Association, Mental Health Association in Pennsylvania, Mental Health Association of Southeastern Pennsylvania, The Philadelphia Alliance, Drug and Alcohol Service Providers Organization of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Community Providers Association, Success Against All Odds, Appellants v. The DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Appellee Pennsylvania Health Care Association, Intervenor.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Sept. 25, 2013.

*192
      *ORDER*

AND NOW, this 25th day of September, 2013, the order of the Commonwealth Court is affirmed.
#### Surinder Kumar ARORA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-71958.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.*

Filed Nov. 1, 2010.

Bruce C. Wong, Esq., Duxford Law Group, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Oil, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Surinder Kumar Arora, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, *Husyev v. Mukasey,*528 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination because the IJ made a specific and cogent demean- or finding, *see Arulampalam v. Ashcroft,*353 F.3d 679, 686 (9th Cir.2003), and because Arora’s testimony regarding his injuries was inconsistent with his medical documents, *see Gael v. Gonzales,*490 F.3d 735 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam). In the absence of credible testimony, Arora’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Because Arora’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony found to be not credible, and he points to no other evidence the IJ should have considered, substantial evidence also supports the denial of CAT relief. *See id.*at 1156-57.

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.
EXHIBIT 32.01



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 Caraustar Industries, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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 operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |                                                         
|-------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 5, 2005 |  |                                                         
|                     |  | /s/ Michael J. Keough                                   
|                     |  | Michael J. Keough, President and Chief Executive Officer