alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANGELA RENDEROS

- ABREGO,

Petitioner,

v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,
Respondent. No. 16

- 70193

Agency No. A099

- 525

- 181

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 15, 2022 * *

Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
Angela Renderos

- Abrego , a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro

se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her

motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen.

* 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

JUN 22 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 16

- 70193

Najmabadi v. Holder , 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and
dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying R e nderos

- Abrego’s second

motion to reopen as untimely and number

- barred, where she failed to establish t hat
she qualified for an exception to the time and number bars. S ee 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.2(c)(1) , (3)(ii) ; Toufighi v. Mukasey , 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008)
( evidence must demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief to warrant reopening
based on changed country conditions).

To the extent that Renderos

- Abrego challenges the BIA’s underlying

dismissal order and its denial of her first motion to reopen, we la ck jurisdiction to
consider her arguments because this petition for review was filed more than 30
days after those decisions. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (“The petition for review

must be filed not later than 30 days after the date of the final order of rem ov al.”) ;
see also Singh v. INS , 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003) (30

- day deadline is

“ mandatory and jurisdictional ” )

. We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of sua sponte reopening,

where Renderos

- Abrego has not raised a legal or constitutional error. See Bonilla

v. Lynch
, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[T]his court has jurisdiction to

review Board decisions denying sua sponte reopening for the limited purpose of
reviewing the reasoning behind the d ecisions for legal or constitutional error.”).3 16

- 70193

We also lack jurisdiction to consider the BIA’s denial of Renderos

- Abrego’s

request for prosecutorial discretion

. S ee Vilchiz

- Soto v. Holder , 688 F.3d 642, 644

(9th Cir. 2012) (order)

. The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the issuance of the

mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED, in part; DISMISSED, in part.
SCHEDULE P 

(Form 8865)

Department of the Treasury 

Internal Revenue Service

Acquisitions, Dispositions, and Changes of Interests 

in a Foreign Partnership

(under section 6046A)

© Attach to Form 8865. See Instructions for Form 8865.

OMB No. 1545-1668

2009

Name of person filing Form 8865 Filer’s identifying number

Name of foreign partnership

Part I Acquisitions

(a) 

Name, address, and identifying number of 

person from whom your interest was acquired

(b) 

Date of acquisition

(c) 

FMV of 

interest acquired

(d) 

Basis in 

interest acquired

(e) 

% of interest 

before acquisition

(f) 

% of interest 

after acquisition

Part II Dispositions

(a) 

Name, address, and identifying number of 

person who acquired your interest

(b) 

Date of disposition

(c) 

FMV of 

interest disposed

(d) 

Basis in 

interest disposed

(e) 

% of interest 

before disposition

(f) 

% of interest 

after disposition

Part III Change in Proportional Interest

(a) 

Description of change

(b) 

Date of change

(c) 

FMV of 

interest

(d) 

Basis in 

interest

(e) 

% of interest 

before change

(f) 

% of interest 

after change

Part IV Supplemental Information Required To Be Reported (see instructions)

For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the Instructions for Form 8865. Cat. No. 25943Q Schedule P (Form 8865) 2009
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         252,917
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  132,959
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,765,387
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,217,424
<PP&E>                                         636,294
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,952,453
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,426,560
<BONDS>                                      1,010,104
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,512
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,502,512
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,952,453
<SALES>                                      9,893,919
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,893,919
<CGS>                                        2,599,944
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,599,944
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (466,307)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (466,307)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (466,307)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.04)
        

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          42,577
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    403,174
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          10,681
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           414,038
<LOANS>                                      1,339,563
<ALLOWANCE>                                     21,895
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,816,743
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,469,587
<SHORT-TERM>                                   107,682
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             25,103
<LONG-TERM>                                     80,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           112
<OTHER-SE>                                     134,259
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,816,743
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 90,391
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               17,569
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               107,960
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              47,568
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,179
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           52,213
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    9,037
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                (509)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 23,774
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 24,124
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      24,124
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,674
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.71
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.65
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.93
<LOANS-NON>                                     11,083
<LOANS-PAST>                                       126
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                19,207
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    7,368
<RECOVERIES>                                     1,019
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               21,895
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            21,895
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from United
Investors Income Properties 1999 First Quarter 10-QSB and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such 10-QSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000830056
<NAME> UNITED INVESTORS INCOME PROPERTIES
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           1,077
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          12,570
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,500
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  11,109
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,833
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    11,109
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   494
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   322
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       181
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.93<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 96-10391

____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ELI TREVINO MUNGIA; ROY RAY MARTIN,

Defendants - Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(5;95-CR-17-C)

April 7, 1997

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Defendants Eli Mungia and Roy Martin appeal their convictions

under the federal hate crimes statute, 18 U.S.C. § 245(b)(2)(B),

for shooting three African-American men. Finding no error, we

affirm.

Mungia asserts that his victims were not involved in a

federally protected activity at the time they were shot, and that

the district court accordingly did not have federal jurisdiction to

hear his case. Mungia was prosecuted under a federal statute that
does not require any showing of a “federally protected activity.”

The district court had jurisdiction to try the defendants under the

federal criminal statute under 18 U.S.C. § 3231.

Each defendant raises a separate sufficiency of the evidence

challenge. After reviewing the evidence, we conclude that a

reasonable trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt

that the defendants’ crimes were motivated by race and that the

streets and sidewalks on which the victims were shot qualify as a

“facility . . . provided or administered by any State or

subdivision thereof.” 18 U.S.C. § 245(b)(2)(B); See also Kinney v.

Yerusalim, 9 F.3d 1067, 1073 (3d Cir. 1993) (street is a “facility”

under section 245(b)), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1033, 114 S. Ct.

1545, 128 L. Ed. 2d 196 (1994); United States v. Three Juveniles,

886 F. Supp. 934, 944 (D. Mass. 1995) (streets and sidewalks are

“facilities” under the statute).

Martin challenges the district court’s jury instruction

regarding whether the streets and sidewalks of Lubbock qualify as

facilities administered by the city. He asserts that, under United

States v. Gaudin, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S. Ct. 2310, 132 L. Ed. 2d 444

(1995), the court must leave this mixed question of law and fact

for the jury to determine. The court allowed the jury to find the

relevant facts, and there is no evidence that the court’s

instruction removed any element of the crime from the jury’s

consideration. We hold that the district court’s instruction in

this case was consistent with Gaudin and the Sixth Amendment of the
U.S. Constitution.

AFFIRMED.
[No. 25179-9-III.

Division Three.

September 11, 2007.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Barry Lee Losh, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Spokane County, No. 05-1-03553-7, Robert D. Austin, J., entered April 11 and May 8, 2006. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Kulik, J., concurred in by Schultheis, A.C.J., and Brown, J.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2393

To repeal the Act of March 3, 1931 (known as the Davis-Bacon Act).

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 10, 1993

Mr. DELAY (for himself, Mr. HOEKSTRA, Mr. BATEMAN, Mr. WALKER, Mr.

RAMSTAD, Mr. CRANE, Mr. EMERSON, Mr. FAWELL, Mr. BALLENGER,

Mr. OXLEY, Mr. GALLEGLY, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Mr. LEWIS of Florida,

Mr. BOEHNER, Mr. COX, Mr. PACKARD, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. ARMEY, Mr.

LINDER, Mr. LIGHTFOOT, Mr. BARTON of Texas, Mr. ARCHER, Mr.

SMITH of Oregon, Mr. COBLE, Mr. BAKER of Louisiana, Mr. COMBEST,

Mr. INHOFE, Mr. HANCOCK, Mr. STUMP, Mr. KOLBE, Mr. DOOLITTLE,

Mr. GINGRICH, Mr. BEREUTER, Mr. HUTCHINSON, Mr. BARTLETT of

Maryland, Mr. SUNDQUIST, Mr. MCCANDLESS, Mr. MILLER of Florida,

Mr. MICA, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. MCMILLAN, Mr.

KNOLLENBERG, Mr. DORNAN, Mr. BILIRAKIS, Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska, Mr. GOSS, Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina, Mr. CUNNINGHAM, Mr.

PORTER, Mr. LIVINGSTON, Mr. ALLARD, Mr. KIM, Mr. HANSEN, and

Mrs. VUCANOVICH) introduced the following bill; which was referred to

the Committee on Education and Labor

A BILL

To repeal the Act of March 3, 1931 (known as the DavisBacon Act).

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 2393 IH

1 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF DAVIS-BACON ACT.

2 The Act of March 3, 1931 (known as the Davis3 Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. 276a et seq.)) is repealed.

Æ
EXHIBIT 32.2


                                  CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, John Chieffo,  Chief Financial Officer of
Pruco Life Insurance Company of New Jersey (the "Company"),  hereby certify that
the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005,
containing  the  financial  statements  of  Pruco  Life of New  Jersey  Variable
Contract  Real  Property  Account (a  separate  account of Pruco Life  Insurance
Company of New  Jersey)  and The  Prudential  Variable  Contract  Real  Property
Partnership  (the "Report"),  fully complies with the requirements of Section 13
(a) or 15 (d) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and that the  information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition  and  results  of  operations  of Pruco  Life of New  Jersey  Variable
Contract  Real  Property  Account  and The  Prudential  Variable  Contract  Real
Property Partnership.

Date: August 15, 2005

/s/ John Chieffo
----------------
Name: John Chieffo
Title: Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing  certification  is being  furnished  solely  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section  1350 and is not  being  filed as part of the  Report  or as a  separate
disclosure document.
Exhibit 13.2

906 CERTIFICATION

The
certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the amended Annual Report on Form 20-F/A for the year ended December 31, 2015 (the report) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or
Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

Luca DAgnese, the Chief Executive Officer, and Javier Galán A., the Chief Financial Officer, of Enersis Américas S.A.,
each certifies that, to the best of their knowledge:



| | 1. | the report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Enersis Américas S.A.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: September 6, 2016



/s/ Luca
DAgneseName: Luca DAgneseChief Executive Officer/s/ Javier Galán
A.Name: Javier Galán A.Chief Financial Officer
941 A.2d 1259

#### GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, c/o CT Corporation and Faulkner Olds, Inc., Petitioners, v. Ashley D’AMICO, a minor by her parents and natural guardians, Christopher D’AMICO, Respondents.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Feb. 5, 2008.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 4th day of February, 2008, as the matter filed at Docket Number 0334 March Term, 2005 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County is discontinued, the Petition for Review is DISMISSED AS MOOT.
Exhibit 32.1



Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer of BSB Bancorp, Inc. (the Company),
hereby certifies that to his knowledge on the date hereof:



|(a) | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended September 30, 2003 filed on the date hereof 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
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(b) | Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/    HOWARD W. SHARPHoward W. Sharp President and Chief Executive Officer November 12, 2003




A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to BSB Bancorp, Inc. and will be retained by BSB Bancorp, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Faustino ARREAGA-BARRIOS, also known as Faustino Adolfo Arreaga, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 10-60148

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 14, 2011.

Gino Mario Mesa, Esq., Gino Mario Mesa, Esq., Houston, TX, for Petitioner.

Kiley L. Kane, Esq., Tangerlia Cox, Jeffrey Ronald Meyer, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before KING, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Faustino Arreaga-Barrios (Arreaga) petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the immigration judge’s decision to deny his application for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Arreaga argues that the BIA erred in determining that he had not established entitlement to withholding of removal under the INA. Arreaga does not challenge the BIA’s decision that his asylum application was untimely. He has therefore abandoned any such challenge. *See Soadjede v. Ashcroft,*324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir.2003).

Arreaga complained in his application of threats of violence and extortion by gang members who did not act under official sanction. The actions of the gang members, he argued, constituted persecution. However, Arreaga’s refusal to give money to gang members in exchange for not being beaten up does not qualify him as a member of a protected social group. *See Faddoul v. INS,*37 F.3d 185, 188 (5th Cir.1994). Thus, the evidence in the record does not establish a clear probability of persecution if Arreaga is returned to *826Guatemala. *See id.; Roy v. Ashcroft,*389 F.3d 132, 138 (5th Cir.2004).

Our review of the record shows that the BIA’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and that the record does not compel a contrary conclusion. *See Chen v. Gonzales,*470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir.2006); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). Arreaga’s petition for review is DENIED.

*

 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.