alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Edgar Rolando MARROQUIN VELIZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-73380.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 16, 2010.*

Filed Nov. 24, 2010.

Jaime A. Alcabes, Law Office of Jaime A. Alcabes, Oakland, CA, for Petitioner.

Edgar Rolando Marroquin Veliz, South San Francisco, CA, pro se.

OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: 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 **

Edgar Rolando Marroquin Veliz, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Ap*105peals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, *Silaya v. Mukasey,*524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA, applying the “willfull blindness” test of acquiescence, found Marroquin Veliz failed to establish “that he is more likely than not to be tortured by, or with the acquiescence of, anyone within governmental authority” upon return to Guatemala. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief. *See Sinha v. Holder,*564 F.3d 1015, 1026 (9th Cir.2009); *Silaya,*524 F.3d at 1070.

We reject Marroquin Veliz’s contention that the agency ignored the evidence of country conditions in the Country Report because he has not overcome the presumption that the agency reviewed the record. *See Fernandez v. Gonzales,*439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir.2006). We also reject Marroquin Veliz’s contention that the BIA engaged in improper factfinding, because it is belied by the record.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Joseph C. Cahill, Director and CFO of PowerCold Corporation (the Company) do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



1.  This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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.





Date: September 15, 2004



/s/ Joseph C. Cahill

Joseph C. Cahill

Director and CFO

















































24
EXHIBIT 32.1


                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


In connection with the  accompanying  Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Vyta Corp
for the quarter ended September 30, 2008, I, Paul H. Metzinger, President, Chief
Executive  Officer  and  Principal  Accounting  Officer  of  Vyta  Corp,  hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:

     a)   such Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of Vyta Corp for the quarter ended
          September 30, 2008,  fully complies with the  requirements  of section
          13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     b)   the  information  contained in such  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of
          Vyta Corp for the quarter ended September 30, 2008,  fairly  presents,
          in all  material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of
          operations of Vyta Corp.





                                /s/ Paul H. Metzinger
                                -----------------------------------
                                Paul H. Metzinger, Chief Executive Officer,
                                President & Principal Accounting Officer


Date:    November 19, 2008



A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to Vyta Corp and will be retained  by Vyta Corp and  furnished  to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

Assigned on Briefs October 27, 2009

JOEY E. HERRELL v. HOWARD CARLTON, WARDEN

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Johnson County

No. 5157 Robert E. Cupp, Judge

No. E2009-01162-CCA-R3-HC - Filed June 30, 2010

JOSEPH M. TIPTON, P.J., concurring.

I concur in the result reached in the majority opinion, given existing precedent. I

believe though, that once the habeas court concludes that a judgment is void, it should

transfer the case to the convicting court—a court of equal jurisdiction—for further

proceedings. The habeas court should not be allowed to act further regarding the convicting

case by limiting the options available to the Petitioner or to the convicting court upon transfer

of the case.

The procedure followed in the present case, by developing a record in the habeas court

to determine whether or not a guilty plea may be withdrawn, stems from the interpretation

this court made in Summers v. Fortner, 267 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2008), regarding

two Tennessee Supreme Court opinions. See Summers v. State, 212 S.W.3d 251 (Tenn.

2007); Smith v. Lewis, 202 S.W.3d 124 (Tenn. 2006). However, I see nothing in the

supreme court cases that even hints at allowing the habeas court to bind a convicting court

by determining whether a Petitioner is entitled to withdraw a guilty plea. Upon determining

that a conviction or sentence is void, the habeas court should vacate the judgment of

conviction and remand the case to the convicting court for further proceedings. Whether or

not the Petitioner is entitled to withdraw his guilty plea should be left to the convicting court

to decide.

Because Summers v. Fortner is binding precedent, I must concur wholly in this case.

See Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 4(G)(2). I believe, however, that its holdings should be reviewed by
the Tennessee Supreme Court in this case and that the convicting court should be determined

to be the forum for deciding whether or not a guilty plea may be withdrawn.

JOSEPH M.TIPTON, PRESIDING JUDGE

-2-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           3,815
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   87,985
<ALLOWANCES>                                       584
<INVENTORY>                                     56,123
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               166,948
<PP&E>                                         196,403
<DEPRECIATION>                                  61,104
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 342,423
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          161,218
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            83
<OTHER-SE>                                     114,250
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   342,423
<SALES>                                        461,137
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               461,137
<CGS>                                          419,299
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  479,225
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    66
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,452
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (27,606)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (15,927)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (11,679)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (11,679)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.53)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.53)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements of Showpower, Inc. for the three months ended March 31,
1999, and is qualified in its entirely by reference to such financial
information.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                           0000828360
<NAME>                          Showpower, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                  1,000
<CURRENCY>                             U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                           JAN-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                               1.000
<CASH>                                        1,633
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 1,131
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              4,308
<PP&E>                                       21,057
<DEPRECIATION>                               (5,767)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               21,050
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         2,749
<BONDS>                                       2,190
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                     19,715
<OTHER-SE>                                   (4,281)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 21,050
<SALES>                                       2,905
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              2,905
<CGS>                                         2,101
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 1,993
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              (58)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (1,131)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (375)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               0
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (748)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 (0.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (0.23)
                                


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 246 (Friday, December 21, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 65986]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-31404]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[MT-920-02-1310-FI-P; MTM 90089]


Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease 
MTM 90089

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Per Pub.L. 97-451, the lessee timely filed a petition for 
reinstatement of oil and gas lease MTM 90089, Sheridan County, Montana. 
The lessee paid the required rental accruing from the date of 
termination.
    We haven't issued any leases affecting the lands. The lessee agrees 
to new lease terms for rentals and royalties of $10 per acre and 16-2/3 
percent or 4 percentages above the existing competitive royalty rate. 
The lessee paid the $500 administration fee for the reinstatement of 
the lease and $148 cost for publishing this Notice.
    The lessee met the requirements for reinstatement of the lease per 
sec. 31 (d) and (e) of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188). 
We are proposing to reinstate the lease, effective the date of 
termination subject to:
    <bullet> The original terms and conditions of the lease;
    <bullet> The increased rental of $10 per acre;
    <bullet> The increased royalty of 16 2/3 percent or 4 percentages 
above the existing competitive royalty rate; and
    <bullet> The $148 cost of publishing this Notice

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen L. Johnson, Chief, Fluids 
Adjudication Section, BLM Montana State Office, PO Box 36800, Billings, 
Montana 59107, 406-896-5098.

    Dated: November 30, 2001.
Karen L. Johnson,
Chief, Fluids Adjudication Section.
[FR Doc. 01-31404 Filed 12-20-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-$$-P
November 25, 2014

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

IN THE INTEREST OF D.M.M., A CHILD, Appellant

NO. 14-14-00902-CV 

________________________________

Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the order 

signed by the court below on October 15, 2014. Having considered the motion and 

found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
**Exhibit 31.1**
**Certification of the Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002**
I, Douglas D. Burkett, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 30, 2005 of Zila, Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report for the quarter ended April 30, 2005 does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe registrant and have:
     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;
     b) [Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release No. 33-8238;47986];
     c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and
     d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
     a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and
     b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlsover financial reporting.
Date: June 9, 2005   /s/ Douglas D. Burkett, Ph. D.  Douglas D. Burkett, Ph. D.  Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 99.3



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 of Boston Acoustics, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended
March 29, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, the Principal Financial Officer, hereby certifies 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



By:

s/    DEBRA A. RICKER-ROSATODebra A. Ricker-Rosato Vice President  Finance (Principal Financial Officer)June 25, 2003
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 32 (Thursday, February 15, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 10486]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-3834]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

ACTION:  Notice.

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

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the 
following proposal for collection of information under the provisions 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Title, Forms, and OMB Number: Department of Defense Security 
Agreement, Appendage, and Certificate Pertaining to Foreign Interests; 
DD Forms 441, 441-1, and SF 328; OMB Number 0704-0194.
    Type of Request: Reinstatement.
    Number of Respondents: 3,200.
    Responses per Respondent: 2.
    Annual Responses: 6,400.
    Average Burden per Response: 1.5 hours (average).
    Annual Burden Hours: 9,493.
    Needs and Uses: Executive Order 12829, ``National Industrial 
Security Program (NISP),'' stipulates that the Secretary of Defense 
shall serve as the Executive Agent for inspecting and monitoring 
contractors, licensees, and grantees, who require or will require 
access to or will store classified information; for determining the 
eligibility for access to classified information of contractors, 
licensees, and grantees and their respective employees. The specific 
requirements necessary to protect classified information released to 
private industry are set forth in DoD 5200.22M, ``National Industrial 
Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM).'' DD Form 441 is the 
initial contract between industry and the government. The DD Form 441-1 
is used to extend the agreements to branch offices of the contractor. 
The SF Form 328 must be submitted to provide certification regarding 
elements of Foreign Ownership, Control or Influence (FOCI).
    Affected Public: Business or Other For-Profit; Not-For-Profit 
Institutions.
    Frequency: On Occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Required to Obtain or Retain Benefits.
    OMB Desk Officer: Mr. Edward C. Springer.
    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information 
collection should be sent to Mr. Springer at the Office of Management 
and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.
    DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Robert Cushing.
    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal 
should be sent to Mr. Cushing, WHS/DIOR, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, 
Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302.

    Dated: February 8, 2001.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 01-3834 Filed 2-14-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-10-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT
OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           8,502
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,647
<ALLOWANCES>                                       555
<INVENTORY>                                      4,715
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                29,106
<PP&E>                                           3,286
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,001
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  37,193
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,154
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      25,033
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    37,193
<SALES>                                        111,747
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               111,747
<CGS>                                           83,598
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   83,598
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                16,734
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   361
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  94
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,674
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,231
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,443
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,443
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.26<F1>
<FN>
<F1>THE COMPANY PRESENTS PRIMARY EARNINGS PER SHARE (EPS) ON THE FACE OF ITS INCOME
STATEMENT. FULLY DILUTED EPS IS WITHIN 97% OF PRIMARY EPS. THE FIGURES
PRESENTED ABOVE ARE PRIMARY EPS.
</FN>


</TABLE>