alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Sandra Margarita PORTILLO-MENDEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 09-72395.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 16, 2010.*

Filed Nov. 24, 2010.

Sandra Margarita Portillo-Mendez, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.

Anna Nelson, Kelly J. Walls, Esquire, Trial, 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: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Sandra Margarita Portillo-Mendez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, *110withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, *Cerezo v. Mukasey,*512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir.2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s determination of the governing statutes and regulations, *Simeonov v. Ashcroft,*371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir.2004). We review for substantial evidence factual findings, *Ochoa v. Gonzales,*406 F.3d 1166, 1169 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny the petition for review.

We reject Portillo-Mendez’s claim that she is eligible for asylum based on her membership in a particular social group. *See id.*at 1171 (concluding “business owners in Colombia who rejected demands by narco-traffickers to participate in illegal activity” was “too broad to qualify as a particularized social group”). Because Portillo-Mendez failed to establish a nexus to a protected ground, her asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. *See INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 483-484, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992).

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because Portillo-Mendez failed to establish it is more likely than not she will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of El Salvador. *See Sinha v. Holder,*564 F.3d 1015, 1026 (9th Cir.2009).

To the extent Portillo-Mendez raises the same ineffective assistance of counsel challenge she raised to the BIA, it fails because she has not shown any error. *See Mohammed v. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 785, 793 (9th Cir.2005) (petitioner must demonstrate “that counsel failed to perform with sufficient competence”). To the extent Portillo-Mendez raises a new ineffective assistance of counsel challenge, we lack jurisdiction because it was not exhausted. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

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.
## In T he Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 22 - 00275 - CR JAMES BATES , A

PPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , APPELLEE On Appeal from the 137th District Court Lubbock County, Texas Trial Court No . 2021 - 423 , 086 , Honorable John J. “ Trey ” McClendon III , Presiding 

### Novembe r 2 , 2022 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and DOSS and YARBROUGH , JJ. A ppellant , James Bates, appeals his conviction for continuous sexual abuse of a child 1 and sentence to fifty years’ confinement . We dismiss the untimely appeal for want of jurisdiction and because A ppellant has no right of appeal. The timely filing of a written notice of appeal is a jurisdictional prerequisite to hearing an appeal. Casti llo v. State , 369 S.W.3d 196, 198 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). In a

1 See T EX . P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 21.02.2

criminal case, the notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after sentence is imposed or suspended or within ninety days if the defendant timely files a motion for new trial. T EX . R. A PP . P . 26.2(a). If a notice of appeal is not timely filed, an appellate court has no option but to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Castillo , 369 S.W.3d at 198. The trial court sentenced Appellant on October 15, 2021. Because no motion fo r new trial was filed, a notice of appeal was due within thirty days after sentencing, by November 15, 2021. See T EX . R. A PP . P . 4.1(a), 26.2(a). Appellant filed a notice of appeal on September 30, 2022. Thus, Appellant’s untimely notice of appeal preve nts this Court from acquiring jurisdiction over the appeal. Further, under Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d), we are required to dismiss an appeal “if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record. ” Here, the trial court’s certification of Appellant’s right of appeal indicate s that this is a plea - bargain case with no right of appeal and that Appellant has waived the right of appeal. The certification comports with the record before the Court. By letter of October 4 , 2022, we notified Appellant of the consequences of his late notice of appeal and the trial court’s certification and directed him to show how the Court has jurisdiction over the appeal by October 14. Appellant has not filed a respons e or had any further communication with this Court to date. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction and based on the trial court’s certification. Per Curiam Do not publish.
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

SUNSHINE ACT NOTICE

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Thursday, July 14, 2022

PLACE: The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511, 1331 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 504 North, Washington, DC 

20004 (enter from F Street entrance). 

Note that workplace policies instituted to address the COVID-19 

pandemic may restrict the ability of some participants to take part in 

the argument in-person. Those participants will join the argument 

through a videoconference involving all other participants who are 

appearing in-person. 

STATUS: Open 

MATTERS TO BE 

CONSIDERED: The Commission will hear oral argument in the matter Peabody 

Midwest Mining, LLC and Butler employed by Peabody Midwest 

Mining, LLC, Docket Nos. LAKE 2019-0023, 2019-0122, 2019-

0361. (Issues include whether the Judge erred in concluding that the 

operator violated standards when it failed to immediately deenergize equipment and stop work when it encountered high 

methane levels, whether the violations were significant and 

substantial, and whether a supervisor was liable for individual 

penalties.)

Pursuant to the Commission’s COVID-19 Workplace Safety Plan, 

in-person attendance shall be limited to persons participating in the 

oral argument process (e.g., Chair and Commissioners, parties and 

their representatives, Commission employees providing support for 

the meeting). Non-participating individuals may listen to the 

meeting by calling the phone number listed below in this notice.

Any person attending this oral argument who requires special 

accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language 

interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. 

Subject to 29 C.F.R. § 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).

CONTACT PERSON 

FOR MORE INFO: Emogene Johnson (202) 434-9935 / (202) 708-9300 for TDD

Relay / 1-800-877-8339 for toll free.
PHONE NUMBER

FOR LISTENING TO 

MEETING: 1-(866) 236-7472

Passcode: 678-100

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b

Dated: July 1, 2022

__________________________________

Sarah L. Stewart

Deputy General Counsel

Billing Code 6735-01
**FEDERAL****MINE SAFETY ANDHEALTHREVIEWCOMMISSION**

** **

SUNSHINEACTNOTICEBAC6735-01

October25, 2016

 

TIMEANDDATE:                10:00a.m.,Thursday,November 10,2016

 

PLACE:                                  TheRichardV.BackleyHearingRoom,Room511N,1331PennsylvaniaAvenue,NW,Washington,DC20004(enterfromFStreetentrance)

 

STATUS:                                Open

 

MATTERS TO BE

CONSIDERED:                     TheCommissionwillhearoralargumentinthematter*Secretaryof*

*Laborv.PeabodyTwentymileMining,LLC,*DocketNo.WEST2014-930-R,etal.(IssuesincludewhethertheJudgeerredinrejectingconsiderationoftheoperator’sapprovedventilationplanbecauseitisinconsistentwiththelanguageofamandatorystandardgoverningventilation.)

 

 

Anypersonattendingthisoralargumentwhorequiresspecialaccessibilityfeaturesand/orauxiliaryaids,suchassignlanguageinterpreters,mustinformtheCommissioninadvanceofthoseneeds.Subjectto 29 C.F.R. § 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).

 

 

CONTACT PERSON

FORMORE INFO:                Emogene Johnson (202)434-9935 /(202) 708-9300for TDD

Relay/1-800-877-8339for toll free.

 

 

PHONENUMBERFORLISTENINGTO

ARGUMENT:1-(866) 867-4769

Passcode:493-925

 

 

 

 

SarahL.StewartDeputyGeneralCounsel
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   Sep-30-2000
<CASH>                                         16,203
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  14,220
<ALLOWANCES>                                   383
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               50,896
<PP&E>                                         35,040
<DEPRECIATION>                                 12,375
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 181,442
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          42,336
<BONDS>                                        37,496
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       104
<OTHER-SE>                                     95,097
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   181,442
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               360,663
<CGS>                                          229,373
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  337,910
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             2,240
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                21,381
<INCOME-TAX>                                   8,798
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   12,583
<EPS-BASIC>                                    1.33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  1.19



</TABLE>
| Exhibit      21.1 Subsidiaries            |
|-------------------------------------------|
|                                      |   |   |
| Name                                      |   | Jurisdiction      of Incorporation |
|                                      |   |   |
| Big Mountain Water Co.                    |   | Montana |
|                                      |   |   |
| Big Mountain Development      Corporation |   | Montana |
|                                      |   |   |
| Big Mountain Club LLC                     |   | Montana |
|                                      |   |   |
|                                      |
|                                      |
|                                      |
| 39                                        |
|                                      |
|                                           |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                            5
<MULTIPLIER>                     1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                    DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                               20,800
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        38,146
<ALLOWANCES>                                          1,066
<INVENTORY>                                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     60,884
<PP&E>                                               38,069
<DEPRECIATION>                                       22,086
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      114,595
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                45,603
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                                 72
<OTHER-SE>                                           56,746
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        114,595
<SALES>                                             168,258
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    168,258
<CGS>                                                68,550
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       136,079
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     18,378
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      729
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      13,072
<INCOME-TAX>                                          5,882
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   6,607
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                          6,607
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          0.99
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          0.98
                                                    

</TABLE>
**FEDERALMINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION**

 

SUNSHINE ACT NOTICE

 

BAC 6735-01

 

May 8, 2015

 

 

TIMEAND DATE:                11:00 a.m., Thursday, May 21, 2015

 

PLACE:                                  TheRichard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,Washington, DC 20004 (enter from    F Street entrance)

 

STATUS:                                Open

 

MATTERSTO BE 

CONSIDERED:                     TheCommission will hear oral argument in the matter *Secretary of Labor v. OakGrove Resources, LLC,*Docket Nos. SE 2009-261-R, et al.**(Issuesinclude whether the Judge erred by ruling that a safeguard notice prohibitingthe pushing of cars by locomotives was violated.)

 

 

Any person attending this oral argument who requiresspecial accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign languageinterpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs.  Subject to29 C.F.R. § 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).

 

 

CONTACTPERSON 

FOR MORE INFO:                EmogeneJohnson (202) 434-9935 / (202) 708-9300 for TDD

                                                Relay/ 1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                __________________________________

                                                SarahL. Stewart

                                                DeputyGeneral Counsel
----

|   | 2. | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the      Company. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/      L. Paul Latham                               |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| L.      Paul Latham                                   |
| President      and Chief Executive Officer            |
| of      Southwest Royalties, Inc., the                |
| Managing      General Partner of                      |
| Southwest      Oil & Gas Income Fund VIII-A, L.P. |
|                                                  |
| May      14, 2008                                     |
|                                                  |
|                                                  |
| /s/      Mel G. Riggs                                 |
| Mel      G. Riggs                                     |
| Vice      President and Chief Financial Officer of    |
| Southwest      Royalties, Inc., the                   |
| Managing      General Partner of                      |
| Southwest      Oil & Gas Income Fund VIII-A, L.P. |
|                                                  |
| May      14, 2008                                     |
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Celso CERVANTES-HERNANDEZ, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 10-7199.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 21, 2010.

Decided: Jan. 4, 2011.

Celso Cervantes-Hernandez, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Celso Cervantes-Hernandez seeks to appeal his conviction and sentence. In criminal cases where judgment was entered prior to December 1, 2009, the defendant must file a notice of appeal within ten days after the entry of judgment. Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). With or without a motion, upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause, the district court may grant an extension of up to thirty days to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(4); *United States v. Reyes,*759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir.1985).

The district court entered judgment on February 19, 2004. The notice of appeal was filed more than six years later on August 26, 2010. Because Cervantes-Hernandez failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. 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.*
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 19-0086

Filed February 5, 2020

STATE OF IOWA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

FELIX MEJIA,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Becky Goettsch, 

District Associate Judge and Thomas P. Murphy, Judge.

Felix Mejia appeals his conviction for indecent exposure. AFFIRMED.

Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Robert P. Ranschau, 

Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Sheryl Soich, Assistant Attorney 

General, for appellee.

Considered by Bower, C.J., Doyle, J., and Vogel, S.J.*

*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 

(2020).
2

VOGEL, Senior Judge.

Felix Mejia appeals his conviction for indecent exposure. On December 17, 

2018, the district court found him guilty after a bench trial on the minutes of 

evidence. On appeal, he argues his counsel was ineffective for failing to ensure 

his waiver of jury trial was voluntary and intelligent.1

We review an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim de novo. State v. 

Feregrino, 756 N.W.2d 700, 703 (Iowa 2008). To succeed, the defendant must 

show counsel breached a duty and prejudice resulted. Id. at 705.

Mejia signed a stipulation for a trial on the minutes of evidence. However, 

he argues his written stipulation is deficient and the court failed to perform a proper 

colloquy to verify his waiver was voluntary and intelligent. See Iowa R. Crim. P. 

2.17(1) (“Cases required to be tried by jury shall be so tried unless the defendant 

voluntarily and intelligently waives a jury trial in writing and on the record . . . .”).

Even if we assume his attorney breached a duty by failing to ensure his waiver 

was voluntary and intelligent, he must show prejudice resulted. See Feregrino, 

756 N.W.2d at 708 (“The absence of an oral colloquy or a written waiver does not 

necessarily prove that a defendant failed to understand the nature of the right 

waived by proceeding to a non-jury trial.”). On the record before us, we cannot 

determine whether prejudice resulted from his counsel’s alleged failure to obtain a 

proper jury-trial waiver. See also State v. Gomez Garcia, 904 N.W.2d 172, 186 

 

1 Effective July 1, 2019, the Iowa legislature prohibited ineffective-assistance-ofcounsel claims on direct appeal. See 2019 Iowa Acts ch. 140, § 31 (codified at 

Iowa Code § 814.7). The Iowa Supreme Court recently determined these 

amendments do not apply to appeals pending before July 1, 2019. See State v. 

Macke, 933 N.W.2d 226, 230–36 (Iowa 2019). Because Mejia filed his notice of 

appeal on January 2, 2019, we will consider his ineffective-assistance claim.
3

(Iowa 2017) (“The existing record is inadequate to determine whether Gomez 

Garcia would have declined to waive the jury and was thereby actually 

prejudiced.”). Therefore, we affirm his conviction and preserve his deficient-waiver 

claim for a postconviction-relief proceeding.

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3494 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3494

To amend title 5, United States Code, to clarify the nature of judicial 
     review of agency interpretations of statutory and regulatory 
                              provisions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 25, 2021

Mr. Fitzgerald (for himself, Mr. Armstrong, Mr. Buck, Mr. Lamborn, Mr. 
Reschenthaler, and Mr. Palmer) introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 5, United States Code, to clarify the nature of judicial 
     review of agency interpretations of statutory and regulatory 
                              provisions.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Separation of Powers Restoration Act 
of 2021''.

SEC. 2. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF STATUTORY AND REGULATORY INTERPRETATIONS.

    Section 706 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking ``To the extent necessary'' and inserting 
        ``(a) To the extent necessary'';
            (2) by striking ``decide all relevant questions of law, 
        interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and'';
            (3) by inserting after ``of the terms of an agency action'' 
        the following ``and decide de novo all relevant questions of 
        law, including the interpretation of constitutional and 
        statutory provisions, and rules made by agencies. 
        Notwithstanding any other provision of law, this subsection 
        shall apply in any action for judicial review of agency action 
        authorized under any provision of law. No law may exempt any 
        such civil action from the application of this section except 
        by specific reference to this section''; and
            (4) by striking ``The reviewing court shall--'' and 
        inserting the following:
    ``(b) The reviewing court shall--''.
                                 <all>
```