alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Jose Enrique HUERTA-VILLANUEVA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-74320.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 14, 2010.*

Filed Jan. 6, 2011.

Jose Enrique Huerta-Villanueva, Santa Barbara, CA, pro se.

Cac-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Joan Estelle Smiley, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Enrique Huerta-Villanueva, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order and denying his motion to remand. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of motions to remand, *Malhi v. INS,*336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

Huerta-Villanueva has waived any challenge to the agency’s determination that he failed to establish eligibility for cancellation of removal. *See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,*94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir.1996).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Huerta-Villanueva’s motion to remand because he failed to present material, previously unavailable evidence of changed circumstances in Mexico, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c), and he failed to estab*35lish prima facie eligibility for relief under the Convention Against Torture, *see Azanor v. Ashcroft,*364 F.3d 1013, 1018 (9th Cir.2004) (“To qualify for reopening under the Torture Convention, an alien must establish a prima facie case that ‘it is more likely than not that ... she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.’ ”).

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.
*

thy

FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD
> 1250 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20005

October 31, 2008
THRIFT

SAVINGS,
PLAN

Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board
Certification of FOIA Reading Room

a. Internal Review of Agency FOIA Reading Room

e On October 23, 2008, the Federal Retirement
Thrift Investment Board (Agency) reviewed its
FOIA Reading Room
(http://www. frtib.gov/FOIA/index.html) for
determining whether it was in compliance with the
legal requirements for FOIA Reading Rooms. 5
U.S.C. § 552 (a) (2)

b. Any Reading Room Deficiencies. Addressed

e The Agency found no deficiencies in its Reading
Room.

c. Certification

e The Agency certifies that, after review, the
Agency’s reading room is in compliance with the
requirements of FOIA.

Asana Mes

Amanda Martz
Agency FOIA Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 185 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 185

 To amend the Agricultural Act of 1949 to make American Samoa eligible 
                for emergency livestock feed assistance.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 1993

 Mr. Faleomavaega introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                      the Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Agricultural Act of 1949 to make American Samoa eligible 
                for emergency livestock feed assistance.

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

SECTION 1. ELIGIBILITY OF AMERICAN SAMOA FOR EMERGENCY LIVESTOCK FEED 
              ASSISTANCE.

    Section 602(3) of the Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1471(3)) 
is amended by inserting ``American Samoa,'' after ``the Virgin 
Islands,''.

                                 <all>
```
Corporate Passive Activity Loss and Credit Limitations OMB No. 1545-1091

Form 8810

© Attach to the corporation’s tax return (personal service

corporations and closely held corporations only). Department of the Treasury

Internal Revenue Service

Name Employer identification number

2007 Passive Activity Loss

1a Current year income (from Worksheet 2, column (a)) 1a

1b

b Current year deductions and losses (from Worksheet 2,

column (b))

c 1c

d 1d

2

2

3

3

4

4

6 6

7 7

8

8

9 9

For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see separate instructions. Form 8810 (2007)

© See separate instructions.

Prior year unallowed losses (from Worksheet 2, column (c))

Combine lines 1a, 1b, and 1c. If the result is net income or zero, see instructions

Closely held corporations enter net active income and see instructions. Personal service 

corporations enter -0- on this line

Unallowed passive activity deductions and losses. Combine lines 1d and 2. If the

result is net income or zero, see the instructions for lines 1d and 3. Otherwise, go to

line 4

Total deductions and losses allowed. Add the income, if any, on lines 1a and 2 and 

enter the result (see instructions)

Prior year unallowed credits (from Worksheet 5, column (b))

Add lines 5a and 5b

Enter the tax attributable to net passive income and net active income (see instructions)

Unallowed passive activity credit. Subtract line 7 from line 6. If the result is zero or 

less, enter -0-

Allowed passive activity credit. Subtract line 8 from line 6 (see instructions)

2007 Passive Activity Credits

b

5a 5a

5b

Current year credits (from Worksheet 5, column (a))

( )

( )

Part I

Part II

Cat. No. 10356T

Part III Election To Increase Basis of Credit Property

10 If the corporation disposed of its entire interest in a passive activity or former passive activity in a fully taxable

transaction, and the corporation elects to increase the basis of credit property used in that activity by the unallowed 

credit that reduced the property’s basis, check this box (see instructions) ©

Name of passive activity disposed of ©

Description of the credit property for which the election is being made ©

Amount of unallowed credit that reduced the property’s basis © $

11

12

13

Caution: See the instructions and complete Worksheets 1 and 2 before completing Part I.

Caution: See the instructions and complete Worksheet 5 before completing Part II.

2007
FILED

April 1, 1998

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate C ourt Clerk

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

WESTERN SECTION AT JACKSON 

 

STEVEN COBB,

Petitioner\Appellant,

vs. Lake Circuit No. 96-7590

Appeal No. 02A01-9707-CV-00144

JOSEPH VINSON, Chairman 

LCRCF Disciplinary Board, et al,

Respondents\Appellees.

 

SEPARATE CONCURRENCE 

 

HOLLY KIRBY LILLARD, J.

I agree with the majority’s analysis in this case. However, I concur separately to emphasize

that our review, under either the common law writ of certiorari or the statutory writ, should be

limited to hearing the petitioner’s claims regarding “the illegality of acts taken by the disciplinary

board.” Williams v. Tennessee Dept. of Correction, No. 02A01-9503-CV-00046 1995 WL 575142

(Tenn. App. Oct. 2 1995). Even if the requirements of a statutory writ of certiorari are met, our

review should not include the substance of the disciplinary proceeding, i.e. whether the petitioner

actually committed the acts with which he was charged. 

 

HOLLY KIRBY LILLARD, J.
<PAGE>
 
Exhibit 10.6.3.     Quaker City Federal Savings and Loan Association Three Year 
                    Employment Agreement Renewal and Extension Acknowledgement 
                    between Quaker City Federal Savings and Loan Association and
                    Frederic R. McGill dated July 1, 1997.



               QUAKER CITY FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION
                        THREE YEAR EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
                     RENEWAL AND EXTENSION ACKNOWLEDGEMENT



Name of Executive:  Frederic R. (Rick) McGill
                    ------------------------------------------------------



The undersigned executive does hereby acknowledge that, at their regularly 
scheduled meeting on June 19, 1997, the Board of Directors of Quaker City 
Federal Savings and Loan Association acted to renew and extend the Quaker City 
Federal Savings and Loan Association Three Year Employment Agreement with the 
undersigned executive to a full thirty-six (36) month term, until June 30, 2000.


Dated this ___1st ____ day of _______ July _____________, A.D.,____1997 _______.



                                            QUAKER CITY FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN
                                            ASSOCIATION



/s/ Frederic R. McGill                      By:  /s/ Jerome L. Thomas
-----------------------------                    ------------------------------
Executive                                        Chairman of the Board
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1915

To amend title 46, United States Code, to require merchant mariners’

documents for certain seamen.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 28, 1993

Mr. STUDDS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries

A BILL

To amend title 46, United States Code, to require merchant

mariners’ documents for certain seamen.

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

3 SECTION 1. MERCHANT MARINERS’ DOCUMENTS RE4 QUIRED.

5 Section 8701(a) of title 46, United States Code, is

6 amended—

7 (1) by striking ‘‘100’’ and substituting ‘‘5’’;

8 (2) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘a vessel oper9 ating only on rivers and lakes (except the Great
2

HR 1915 IH

1 Lakes);’’ and substituting ‘‘a small passenger vessel,

2 or an uninspected passenger vessel;’’; and

3 (3) by striking paragraph (2), and by redesig4 nating the subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

5 SEC. 2. USER FEE EXEMPTION AND PRIVACY OF INFORMA6 TION.

7 (a) The Secretary of Transportation may not collect

8 a fee or charge under section 2110 of title 46, United

9 States Code, for any service related to a merchant mari10 ner’s document required to be obtained under this Act.

11 (b) The Secretary may not make available to a mem12 ber of the public any personal information concerning an

13 individual required to obtain a merchant mariner’s docu14 ment under this Act.

15 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

16 The amendments made by this Act are effective two

17 years after the date of enactment of this Act.

Æ
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-50946

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PEDRO RUIZ-BECERRIL,

Defendant-Appellant.

 

Consolidated with

No. 01-50957

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PEDRO RUIZ-BECERRIL,

also known as Pedro Rodriguez-Lopez,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-98-CR-950-ALL-IL

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

April 11, 2002

Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*
No. 01-50946

c/w No. 01-50957 

-2-

R. 47.5.4.

Pedro Ruiz-Becerril appeals the sentence imposed following

his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States

after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Ruiz-Becerril

complains that his sentence was improperly enhanced pursuant to

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) based on his prior deportation following an

aggravated felony conviction. Ruiz-Becerril argues that the

sentencing provision violates the Due Process Clause because it

permitted the sentencing judge to find, under a preponderance of

the evidence standard, a fact which increased the statutory

maximum sentence to which he otherwise would have been exposed. 

Ruiz-Becerril thus contends that his sentence is invalid and

argues that it should not exceed the two-year maximum term of

imprisonment prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). 

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Ruiz-Becerril acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1202 (2001). This court
No. 01-50946

c/w No. 01-50957 

-3-

must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court

itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of

the district court is AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that the judgment of the district court be affirmed and that an

appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

 AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JAFRAN AHMED, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 14-73176 

Agency No. A206-498-945 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 9, 2017**

Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Jafran Ahmed, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions for review of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration 

judge’s order affirming the decision of an asylum officer during expedited removal 

proceedings. We dismiss the petition for review.

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

AUG 15 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 14-73176 

We lack jurisdiction to review Ahmed’s removal order because it was issued 

pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B). 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(A)(iii). Ahmed does 

not challenge the removal order under any of the “strictly limited” exceptions in 8 

U.S.C. § 1252(e) and our jurisdiction does not extend to his challenge to the 

validity of the expedited removal order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(2)(B) (challenge 

to whether alien was removed pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1) must be made in 

habeas corpus proceedings); Pena v. Lynch, 815 F.3d 452, 456 (9th Cir. 2015)

(court lacks jurisdiction to review any constitutional or statutory claims related to 

the underlying expedited removal order). 

Ahmed’s motion to stay his removal is denied as moot. The currently 

effective temporary stay of removal will expire upon the issuance of the mandate.

Ahmed’s motion to stay the mandate is denied.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION

I, Joyce Brown, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Mega Group, Inc;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

      a.) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiary, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

      b.) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

      c.) Presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

      a.) All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

      b.) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: July 21, 2006                              By:    /s/ JOYCE BROWN
                                                        -----------------------
                                                        JOYCE BROWN
                                                        CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

                                       12
* 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. 07-51494

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JUAN CRUZ-MARQUEZ

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:07-CR-1954-2

Before DAVIS, WIENER, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Juan Cruz-Marquez has moved for

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967). Cruz-Marquez has not filed a response. Our independent

review ofthe record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 10, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                              5
<MULTIPLIER>                           1,000
       
<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                         JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                           JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                 0<F1>
<SECURITIES>                           0<F1>
<RECEIVABLES>                          0<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                           0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                            0<F1>
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       0<F1>
<PP&E>                                 0<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                         0<F1>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         0<F1>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  0<F1>
<BONDS>                                0<F1>
<COMMON>                               0<F1>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0<F1>
<PREFERRED>                            0<F1>
<OTHER-SE>                             0<F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           0<F1>
<SALES>                                0<F2>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       0<F2>
<CGS>                                  0<F2>
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          0<F2>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       0<F2>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       0<F2>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     0<F2>
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        0<F2>
<INCOME-TAX>                           0<F2>
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    0<F2>
<DISCONTINUED>                         0<F2>
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        0<F2>
<CHANGES>                              0<F2>
<NET-INCOME>                           0<F2>
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          0<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                          0<F2>
        

<FN>
<F1>See June 30, 1997 Statement of Net Assets in Liquidation.
<F2>See June 30, 1997 Statement of Changes in Net Assets in Liquidation.
</FN>



</TABLE>
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2216

To provide that a State may not take into account income from sources

outside the State in determining the amount of tax imposed on the

income of nonresidents.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 20, 1993

Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To provide that a State may not take into account income

from sources outside the State in determining the

amount of tax imposed on the income of nonresidents.

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

3 That (a) chapter 4 of title 4, United States Code, is

4 amended by adding at the end thereof the following new

5 section:

6 ‘‘§ 114. Limitation on taxation of nonresidents

7 ‘‘(a) In determining the amount of income tax im8 posed by a State (or political subdivision thereof) on an

9 individual for any period during which such individual is
2

•HR 2216 IH

1 not a resident or domiciliary of such State, such State (or

2 political subdivision) shall not take into account any in3 come from sources outside such State.

4 ‘‘(b) For purposes of subsection (a)—

5 ‘‘(1) the term ‘State’ includes the District of

6 Columbia, and

7 ‘‘(2) the term ‘income tax’ has the meaning

8 given to such term by section 110(c) of this title.’’

9 (b) The analysis of chapter 4 of title 4, United States

10 Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the follow11 ing new item:

‘‘114. Limitation on taxation of nonresidents.’’

12 (c) The amendments made by this section shall apply

13 to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1992.

Æ