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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

QIFANG ZHANG, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting

Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 14-73934 

Agency No. A087-866-141

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 3, 2018**

Pasadena, California

Before: TASHIMA and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and KENNELLY,*** District

Judge.

Qifang Zhang petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order

dismissing his appeal from an Immigration Judge’s decision denying his application

FILED

DEC 19 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* 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).

*** The Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly, United States District Judge for

the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

1
for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against

Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a).

The Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. See Kin v. Holder,

595 F.3d 1050, 1054 (9th Cir. 2010). Significant unexplained inconsistencies

permeated Zhang’s account of his mistreatment in China. The Immigration Judge

gave Zhang opportunities to explain those inconsistencies, but the Board found his

explanations unpersuasive and unresponsive. And, particularly relevant to the CAT

claim, Zhang’s only corroborating evidence consisted of reports on general trends in

religious tolerance and human rights in China. The BIA concluded that those reports

were insufficient by themselves to support Zhang’s CAT claim. See Dhital v.

Mukasey, 532 F.3d 1044, 1051-52 (9th Cir. 2008). We are persuaded that the record

did not compel a contrary outcome.

Finally, Zhang’s claim that his due process rights were violated by the

Immigration Judge’s conduct during the initial proceedings in his case was not raised

before the Board. Zhang “therefore didn’t exhaust that claim, and we lack jurisdiction

to review it.” Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203, 1208 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc);

Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).

PETITION DENIED.

2
#### Marcus Lachman *v.*Frank Deisch *et al.*

1. Jurisdiction *of county courts*— *injury to real estate.*The act of 1873 gave justices of the peace jurisdiction in “all actions for damages for injuries to real property,” and, by a recent statute, county courts were given ®oncurrent jurisdiction with the circuit courts in all that class of cases in which justices of the peace have jurisdiction where the amount does not exceed §500.

3. Owner of land *may recover while tenant is in possession.*The owner of real estate may maintain an action in the county court for a permanent injury to his property by the construction of a drain, notwithstanding it is in the occupancy of a tenant.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Will county; the Hon. Josiah McRoberts, Judge, presiding.

This was an action brought by Frank Deisch and Paul Deisch, minors, by their next friend, against Marcus Lachman, to recover damages for an injury to the plaintiff’s real estate by the construction of a drain. The suit was originally commenced in the county court, and appealed to the circuit court, where a trial was had affirming the judgment of the county court, which was for $500, in favor of the plaintiffs.

Mr. D. H. Penney, for the appellant.

Mr. R. E. Barber, for the appellees.

*60Per Curiam:

This action was commenced in the county court, to recover damages for injuries to real estate. There was sufficient proof made'on the trial, of title in appellees.

By the second clause of the 13th section of the act in force July 1, 1872, justices of the peace are expressly given jurisdiction in “all actions for damages for injuries to real property,” and, by a recent statute, county courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the circuit courts in all that class of cases in which justices of the peace have jurisdiction, where the amount does not exceed $500. Hence the objection, the county court did not have jurisdiction of the subject matter of this suit, is untenable.

There is no authority for saying the owners could recover damages for injuries to the possession of the property while in the occupancy of a tenant, but the evidence shows damages to the realty in amount equal to that found by the jury. The drain, as constructed, will permanently affect the rental value of the premises, and in such cases it is the settled law the owner may recover. It is upon the principle it would continue to affect the reversionary interest in the realty after the expiration of the tenancy. Taylor on L. and T. sec. *173; Goodell*v. *Lassen,*69 Ill. 145.

The instructions asked by appellant were not specially applicable to the facts of the case in the view of the law we have taken, and whether they state correct abstract principles of law or not, the court properly refused to give them.

Substantial justice has been done, and the judgment must be affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*
### §1439a. Deposits in special fund; availability for all purposes of Federal Home Loan Bank Board and Federal Home Loan Bank Administration

All moneys and funds heretofore deposited in the Treasury of the United States under the last sentence of section 1439 1 of this title (including unexpended balances of moneys appropriated therefrom for administrative expenses), and hereafter all moneys and funds which would, except for this provision, be so depositable thereunder, shall be deposited with the Treasurer of the United States in a special deposit account and shall be available, retroactively as well as prospectively, for expenditure for all purposes of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board and the Federal Home Loan Bank Administration, subject to subsections (a) and (b) of section 712a of title 15.

(June 26, 1943, ch. 145, title I, §101, 57 Stat. 186; 1947 Reorg. Plan No. 3, eff. July 27, 1947, 12 F.R. 4981, 61 Stat. 954; Aug. 11, 1955, ch. 783, title I, §109(a)(3), 69 Stat. 640.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 1439 of this title, referred to in text, was repealed by Pub. L. 101–73, title VII, §708, Aug. 9, 1989, 103 Stat. 418.

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Independent Offices Appropriation Act, 1944, and not as part of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act which comprises this chapter.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Change of Name

"Home Loan Bank Board" changed to "Federal Home Loan Bank Board" by act Aug. 11, 1955, ch. 783, §109(a)(3), which was classified to section 1437(b) of this title prior to the repeal of section 1437 by Pub. L. 101–73, title VII, §703(a), Aug. 9, 1989, 103 Stat. 415. Previously, "Home Loan Bank Board" had been substituted for "Federal Home Loan Bank Board" by Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1947.

#### Transfer of Functions

Federal Home Loan Bank Board abolished and functions transferred, see sections 401 to 406 of Pub. L. 101–73, set out as a note under section 1437 of this title.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

For transfer of functions to Secretary of the Treasury, see note set out under section 55 of this title.

1 See References in Text note below.
### §1679a. Definitions

For purposes of this subchapter, the following definitions apply:

#### (1) Consumer

The term "consumer" means an individual.

#### (2) Consumer credit transaction

The term "consumer credit transaction" means any transaction in which credit is offered or extended to an individual for personal, family, or household purposes.

#### (3) Credit repair organization

The term "credit repair organization"—

(A) means any person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails to sell, provide, or perform (or represent that such person can or will sell, provide, or perform) any service, in return for the payment of money or other valuable consideration, for the express or implied purpose of—

(i) improving any consumer's credit record, credit history, or credit rating; or

(ii) providing advice or assistance to any consumer with regard to any activity or service described in clause (i); and

(B) does not include—

(i) any nonprofit organization which is exempt from taxation under section 501(c)(3) of title 26;

(ii) any creditor (as defined in section 1602 of this title), with respect to any consumer, to the extent the creditor is assisting the consumer to restructure any debt owed by the consumer to the creditor; or

(iii) any depository institution (as that term is defined in section 1813 of title 12) or any Federal or State credit union (as those terms are defined in section 1752 of title 12), or any affiliate or subsidiary of such a depository institution or credit union.

#### (4) Credit

The term "credit" has the meaning given to such term in section 1602(e) 1 of this title.

(Pub. L. 90–321, title IV, §403, as added Pub. L. 104–208, div. A, title II, §2451, Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–455.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 1602(e) of this title, referred to in par. (4), was redesignated section 1602(f) of this title by Pub. L. 111–203, title X, §1100A(1)(A), July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 2107.

#### Prior Provisions

For a prior section 403 of Pub. L. 90–321, see note set out under section 1679 of this title.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section applicable after the end of the 6-month period beginning on Sept. 30, 1996, except with respect to contracts entered into by a credit repair organization before the end of such period, see section 413 of Pub. L. 90–321, as added by Pub. L. 104–208, set out as a note under section 1679 of this title.

1 See References in Text note below.
-  LINC Training Library                  -  Guaranteed Underwriting System (GUS) 
              -  Lender Approval 
              -  Single Family Housing GLP Policy Desk 
              -  Lender Training 
              -  Loan Closing 
              -  Loan Origination 
              -  Loan Servicing 
              -  GUS Lender Test Environment (LTE) 
              -  SFHGLP System Access and Security Guide 
              -  *New* Lender Training Schedule 

                  - English
                  - Spanish

Welcome to The Policy Desk!  Rural Development recognizes the importance of obtaining input from our stakeholders on proposed policy revisions, prior to those updates becoming effective.  The Policy Desk was created with that goal in mind.  Here, you will find proposed policy revisions, as well as a mechanism to provide comments to Rural Development on these proposals.  We encourage all stakeholders to review these proposals and provide your comments using the link below, or by emailing the Policy Desk at sfhgld.policydesk@usda.gov.  Thank you for your continued support of Rural Development’s Single-Family Housing Guaranteed Loan Program!

## Announcements

Rural Development’s Single-Family Housing Guaranteed Loan Program is currently seeking comments on proposed revisions to Chapters 17, 18, and 19 of Handbook 1-3555.  Feedback can be provided through April 12, 2024 using the Stakeholder Comment Form.  Thank you for providing your important feedback on these proposals!

## Proposed Policy Revisions Open for Comment

Chapter 17 - Regular Servicing Performing Loans Advance Copy

Chapter 17 - Regular Servicing Performing Loans Markup Version

Chapter 18 - Servicing Non-Performing Loans Advance Copy

Chapter 18 - Servicing Non-Performing Loans Markup Version

Chapter 19 - Loss Claims Advance Copy

Chapter 19 - Loss Claims Markup Version

Stakeholder Comment Form

## Archive of Previous Proposals

None at this time.
### §4514a. Study and reports on guarantee fees

#### (a) Ongoing study of fees

The Director shall conduct an ongoing study of fees charged by enterprises for guaranteeing a mortgage.

#### (b) Collection of data

The Director shall, by regulation or order, establish procedures for the collection of data from enterprises for purposes of this subsection,1 including the format and the process for collection of such data.

#### (c) Reports to Congress

The Director shall annually submit a report to Congress on the results of the study conducted under subsection (a), based on the aggregated data collected under subsection (a) for the subject year, regarding the amount of such fees and the criteria used by the enterprises to determine such fees.

#### (d) Contents of reports

The reports required under subsection (c) shall identify and analyze—

(1) the factors considered in determining the amount of the guarantee fees charged;

(2) the total revenue earned by the enterprises from guarantee fees;

(3) the total costs incurred by the enterprises for providing guarantees;

(4) the average guarantee fee charged by the enterprises;

(5) an analysis of any increase or decrease in guarantee fees from the preceding year;

(6) a breakdown of the revenue and costs associated with providing guarantees, based on product type and risk classifications; and

(7) a breakdown of guarantee fees charged based on asset size of the originator and the number of loans sold or transferred to an enterprise.

#### (e) Protection of information

Nothing in this section may be construed to require or authorize the Director to publicly disclose information that is confidential or proprietary.

(Pub. L. 110–289, div. A, title VI, §1601, July 30, 2008, 122 Stat. 2824.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Federal Housing Finance Regulatory Reform Act of 2008, and also as part of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, and not as part of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 which comprises this chapter.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Definitions

For definitions of terms used in this section, see section 1002(b) of Pub. L. 110–289, set out as a note under section 4511 of this title.

1 So in original. Probably should be "section".
N 

CJ 

CJ 

CJ 

CJ 

-

-

r 1

- -

2023 RMA Crops' Indemnities 

No Indemnity ($0.00)

$0.01 - $1,000,000.00

$1,000,000.01 - $10,000,000.00 

$10,000,000.01 - $25,000,000.00 

$25,000,000.01 - $50,000,000.00 

$50,000,000.01 - $82,917,249.00 

MapCreationDate:September12,2023

LayerCredits :USDA&USCens u s Bu reau

Sou rce:USDARis kManag ementAg ency -Su m mary ofBu s ines s

DataCu rent Date:September1,2023

This map depicts weekly crop insurance indemnity data by county as of the data current date denoted on the map MapProjection:USAContig u ou s Albers Equ alAreaConic

RMA Risk Management Services Division

Theinformationdisplayedinthis mapis intendedtoserveas anaidindis playing dataprovidedors toredby theRis kManag ementAg ency.It does not modify,replaceors u pers edeany USDApu blishedpolicy provis ions orprocedu res.

Maps createdby USDARiskManag ementAg ency arefors patialandvis u alcontext fordepicting thebas icinformationfor“where”.Maps arenot cons ideredas u rvey.GeneralReferenceOnly. 

-Pu blicInformationand is published biweekly.
1

MEMORANDUM

DATE: April 5, 2012

SUBJECT: NSPS Low Pressure Well Threshold: Summary and Impacts Estimates

In response to comments received on the proposed rule related to the technical infeasibility of gas capture from low 

pressure wells, the EPA evaluated alternative options and developed a pressure threshold in the final rule. This 

threshold is based on a simple equation operators can use to determine if the flowback pressure of a well is sufficient 

to overcome the pressure of the flow line, thus making gas capture through Reduced Emission Completions possible. 

If the flowback gas of a well falls below the pressure threshold, combustion is allowed as an alternative.

Full details of the analysis to develop the pressure threshold and nation-wide impacts are available in the

Determination of Minimum Flowback Pressure Memorandum. This document provides additional details on the 

impacts related to CBM wells

Further Details on the Low Pressure Threshold Impacts Analysis:

The data used in this analysis is 2008 data from HPDI, which contains detailed production and other related data on 

natural gas wells in the United States. Using this data set and other information to estimate the required equation input

parameters, EPA applied the equation to each hydraulically fractured gas well completion in the data set to determine 

which completion would likely fall above or below the threshold. Based on this analysis, the key results are as follows:

 10% of hydraulically fractured wells nation-wide would fall below the pressure threshold in the rule and thus 

allowed to combust as an alternative to REC.

 CBM represents about 85% of the total wells that are estimated to fall below the threshold; EPA’s estimates 

show that the majority of CBM well completions in the dataset (almost 90%) would fall below the threshold.

CBM wells have been recognized by many commenters as having low VOC and should not be included in the rule. 

This analysis shows that even in the absence of a VOC threshold, the majority of these wells are likely not subject to 

the REC requirements.

Background: Overview of Final Rule Pressure Threshold Equation:

The final NSPS OOOO rule includes Equation 1 (below) for operators to determine if a well meets the threshold. 

Operators will input the reservoir pressure and vertical well depth (both of which are available at the time the well is 

perforated) for each gas well that is a hydraulic fracturing affected facility into Equation 1. This result of this equation 

will determine a calculated pressure of the gas immediately before it would be routed to the flow line, resulting in one 

of two cases: (1) the calculated line pressure is greater than the actual line pressure to be used by the operator, thus the 

gas capture using REC in combination with combustion is required, or (2) the calculated line pressure is less than or 

equal to the actual flow line pressure, combustion is allowed as an alternative. 

 = 0.445 ×  − 0.038 ×  + 67.578 (Eq. 1)
### §1335. Unlawful advertisements on medium of electronic communication

After January 1, 1971, it shall be unlawful to advertise cigarettes and little cigars on any medium of electronic communication subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission.

(Pub. L. 89–92, §6, July 27, 1965, 79 Stat. 283; Pub. L. 91–222, §2, Apr. 1, 1970, 84 Stat. 89; Pub. L. 93–109, §3, Sept. 21, 1973, 87 Stat. 352.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1973—Pub. L. 93–109 extended prohibition against advertisements to little cigars.

1970—Pub. L. 91–222 substituted provision that after January 1, 1971, it shall be unlawful to advertise cigarettes on any medium of electronic communication subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission, for provision that a violation of this chapter should constitute misdemeanor and be punishable by fine. See, now, section 1338 of this title.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 1973 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 93–109 effective thirty days after Sept. 21, 1973, see section 4 of Pub. L. 93–109, set out as a note under section 1332 of this title.

#### Effective Date of 1970 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 91–222 effective Jan. 1, 1970, except where otherwise specified, see section 3 of Pub. L. 91–222, set out in part as a note under section 1331 of this title.
### SUBCHAPTER I—COAST GUARD FAMILIES

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–282, title I, §117(c)(1), Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4231, inserted subchapter I designation and heading.
Exhibit 10.25**Summary of Non-Employee Director Compensation**Non-Employee directors of National Dentex Corporation are paid the following fees:     **Annual Retainer** $30,000 cash or $36,000 equity       **Meeting Fees** $1,000 in person; $500 telephone        **Committee membership**    **•**   *Audit committee chair* $10,000   **•**   *Audit committee member* $2,000   **•**   *Other committee chair* $2,000        **New Restricted Stock Grants** $18,000 (annual grant; vesting over two year period)
# C_2012217EN.01001902.xml

| 21.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2012 — Seikoh Giken v OHIM — Seiko Holdings (SG SEIKOH GIKEN)

(Case T-519/10) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration - Application for territorial extension of the protection - Figurative mark SG SEIKOH GIKEN - Earlier Community word mark SEIKO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2012/C 217/40

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Kabushiki Kaisha Seikoh Giken (Matsudo-shi Chiba, Japan) (represented by: G. Marín Raigal, P. López Ronda and G. Macias Bonilla, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Seiko Holdings Kabushiki Kaisha (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: J. Fish, R. Miller, Solicitors and A. Bryson, Barrister)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 August 2010 (Case R 1553/2009-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Seiko Holdings Kabushiki Kaisha and Kabushiki Kaisha Seikoh Giken.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Kabushiki Kaisha Seikoh Giken to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Kabushiki Kaisha Seikoh Giken to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2011.

1

---
----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----
### §153. Dividends

Dividends declared by a China Trade Act corporation shall be derived wholly from the surplus profits of its business.

(Sept. 19, 1922, ch. 346, §13, 42 Stat. 853.)
EXHIBIT 99.1

                        UNITRONIX CORPORATION

                      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                       18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
           SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Unitronix Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned hereby certify that to the best of our knowledge:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


May 27, 2003 /s/ Dale M. Hendrick     President and Chief Executive Officer
             ------------------------

May 27, 2003 /s/ William C. Wimer     Vice President of Operations and
             ------------------------   Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.