alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RAMZI EID AWWAD

ALRAWASHDEH,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-73619

Agency No. A098-263-702

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 17, 2012** 

Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Ramzi Eid Awwad Alrawashdeh, a native and citizen of Jordan, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

FILED

JUL 24 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-73619

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence,

Rahimzadeh v. Holder, 613 F.3d 916, 920 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition

for review.

Alrawashdeh fails to challenge the agency’s dispositive determination that

his asylum application was time-barred. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d

1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues that are not addressed in the argument

portion of a brief are deemed waived). He also does not challenge the denial of his

CAT claim. See id. Accordingly, we deny the petition as to his asylum and CAT

claims. 

Alrawashdeh claims that because he and his girlfriend were involved in a

romantic relationship before marriage, his girlfriend’s father threatened and stalked

him. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Alrawashdeh failed

to demonstrate he was or will be harmed by forces the government of Jordan is

unwilling or unable to control. See Castro-Perez v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1069, 1072

(9th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, his withholding of removal claim fails.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
§ 1101.45 Adjudicatory proceeding exception. ( a ) *Statutory provision.* Section 6(b)(4)(B) provides that the requirements of section 6(b)(1) do not apply to public disclosure of “information in the course of or concerning * * * [an] adjudicatory proceeding * * * under this Act.”
( b ) *Scope of exception.* This exception applies once the Commission begins an administrative adjudication under the CPSA. The Commission will also apply the exception to any administrative adjudicatory proceeding under FHSA, FAA, or PPPA. An adjudicatory proceeding begins with the filing of a complaint under section 15(c) or (d), 17(a)(1) or (3), or 20 of the CPSA (15 U.S.C. 2064(c) or (d), 2066(a)(1), or (3), or 2069); section 15 of the FHSA (15 U.S.C. 1274); section 5(b) of the FFA, (15 U.S.C. 1194(b)); or section 4(c) of the PPPA (15 U.S.C. 1473(c)). An adjudicatory proceeding ends when the Commission issues a final order, 16 CFR 1025.51-1025.58.
( c ) The phrase “in the course of” refers to information disclosed as part of the adjudication, whether in documents filed or exchanged during discovery, or in testimony given in such proceedings, and may therefore, include information generated before the adjudication began.
( d ) The phrase “concerning” refers to information about the administrative adjudication itself, both once it begins and indefinitely thereafter. Therefore, the Commission may publicly disclose information that describes the substance, process and outcome of the proceeding including, for example, the effectiveness of any corrective action such as information on the number of products corrected as a result of a remedial action. By issuing opinions and public statements, the Commissioners and the presiding official, who act as decisionmakers, may publicly explain their individual votes and any decision rendered.
[48 FR 57430, Dec. 29, 1983, as amended at 49 FR 8428, Mar. 7, 1984]
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3668 

To prevent trafficking in counterfeit drugs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 14, 2011 

Mr. MEEHAN (for himself and Ms. LINDA T. SA ́NCHEZ of California) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To prevent trafficking in counterfeit drugs. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Counterfeit Drug Pen5 alty Enhancement Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. COUNTERFEIT DRUG PREVENTION. 

7 Section 2320(a) of title 18, United States Code, is 

8 amended— 

9 (1) by redesignating paragraph (2) as para10 graph (3); 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3668 IH

1 (2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the fol2 lowing: 

3 ‘‘(2) COUNTERFEIT DRUGS.— 

4 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Whoever commits an 

5 offense in violation of paragraph (1) with re6 spect to a drug (as defined in section 201 of the 

7 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 

8 U.S.C. 321)) shall— 

9 ‘‘(i) if an individual, be fined not more 

10 than $4,000,000, imprisoned for not more 

11 than 20 years, or both; and 

12 ‘‘(ii) if a person other than an indi13 vidual, be fined not more than 

14 $10,000,000. 

15 ‘‘(B) MULTIPLE OFFENSES.—In the case 

16 of an offense by a person under this paragraph 

17 that occurs after that person is convicted of an18 other offense under this paragraph, the person 

19 convicted— 

20 ‘‘(i) if an individual, shall be fined not 

21 more than $8,000,000, imprisoned for not 

22 more than 20 years, or both; and 

23 ‘‘(ii) if other than an individual, shall 

24 be fined not more than $20,000,000.’’; and 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3668 IH

1 (3) in paragraph (3)(B), as redesignated, by 

2 striking ‘‘paragraph (1)’’ and inserting ‘‘paragraph 

3 (1) or (2)’’. 

4 SEC. 3. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION. 

5 Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this 

6 Act, shall be construed to apply to a drug (as defined in 

7 section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 

8 (21 U.S.C. 321)) solely because the drug is manufactured 

9 in or imported from a foreign country. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
### §13741. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 13741 was editorially reclassified as section 12131 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
### Equipment Classes and Shipments



### Table 2.4.1 Distribution Transformer Equipment Classes EC # DL 

### Shipments (MVA Capacity) (2009 estimates) Insulation Voltage Phase BIL Rating kVA Range

1 1,2,3 21,994 LiquidImmersed Medium Single - 10-833 kVA

2 4,5 28,372 LiquidImmersed Medium Three - 15-2500 kVA

3 6 647 Dry-Type Low Single - 15-333 kVA 4 7,8 15,778 Dry-Type Low Three - 15-1000 kVA 5 9*,10* 23 Dry-Type Medium Single 20-45kV BIL 15-833 kVA 6 9,10 257 Dry-Type Medium Three 20-45kV BIL 15-2500 kVA 7 11*,12* 23 Dry-Type Medium Single 46-95kV BIL 15-833 kVA 8 11,12 3,665 Dry-Type Medium Three 46-95kV BIL 15-2500 kVA 9 13* 9 Dry-Type Medium Single ≥ 96kV BIL 75-833 kVA 10 13a, 13b 2,206 Dry-Type Medium Three ≥ 96kV BIL 225-2500 kVA
October 7, 2016 

The Honorable Edward J. Markey 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senator Markey: 

On behalf of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), I am providing the 

remaining responses to your letter of June 30, 2016, regarding the recent study from the 

National Academy of Sciences (NAS) entitled “Lessons Learned from the Fukushima Nuclear 

Accident for Improving Safety and Security of U.S. Nuclear Plants, Phase 2.” 

When the Commission provided its initial response on August 23, 2016, we asked to 

address questions 1, 2, 3, 4b, and 4c, which related to the agency’s views on the NAS report, at 

a later date, after the NRC staff completed its review of the findings and recommendations in 

the report. The staff has recently completed its review and provided a paper to the Commission 

describing that assessment. Answers to the outstanding questions are provided in Enclosure 1 

to this letter. A copy of the staff paper is also enclosed. 

 If you need anything additional, please contact me or Eugene Dacus, Director of the 

Office of Congressional Affairs, at (301) 415-1776. 

Sincerely, 

/RA/ 

Stephen G. Burns 

Enclosures: 

As stated
#### A. C. Heister, Defendant in Error, v. Crane Company, Plaintiff in Error.

Gen. No. 20,432.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Joseph S. La But, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1914.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed March 8, 1915.

*584Abstract of the Decision.

1. Automobiles and gabages, § *2*
      ***
      *—when verdict for injury by collision excessive.*In an action to recover for damages to plaintiff’s automobile by collision with defendant’s motor truck and for loss to plaintiff’s business while his car was being ■ repaired, where the evidence shows that the cost of the repairs occasioned by the accident did not amount to sixty dollars and no actual monetary loss to his business by inability to use the car is shown, a verdict for three hundred and fifty dollars is excessive.

2. Evidence, § *420*—when opinion evidence insufficient to show injury to business.*In an action to recover for losses alleged to have been caused to plaintiff’s business by his inability to use his automobile while it was being repaired after a collision with defendant’s truck, it is error to permit plaintiff to give an estimate of the value per day of the car to his business, but actual monetary loss must be shown.

Statement of the Case.

Action by A. G. Heister against Crane Company, a corporation, for damages alleged to have been caused to plaintiff’s automobile by defendant’s motor truck skidding into it.

Plaintiff’s claim was for damages and for loss to his business while his automobile was being repaired.

The automobile repairer by whom plaintiff’s car was repaired testified as to the damage and that his bill for the repairs and two other items not connected with the accident was sixty dollars.

There was evidence as to other troubles with the car arising subsequently, but their character and the causal connection of the accident with them was not clearly shown.

Plaintiff’s damages were assessed at three hundred and fifty dollars, and to reverse the judgment entered therefor defendant prosecutes this writ of error.

Alden, Latham & Young, for plaintiff in error.

No appearance for defendant in error.

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vole. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.
No: II-16-032 August 1, 2016

CONTACT: Roger Hannah 404-997-4417

Joey Ledford 404-997-4416

NRC Sends Augmented Inspection Team to Westinghouse Nuclear Fuel Plant

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission today is sending an Augmented Inspection Team to the 

Westinghouse nuclear fuel fabrication plant in Columbia, S.C., to assess the unexpected accumulation 

of an excessive amount of uranium-bearing material in a plant component.

An Augmented Inspection Team, or an AIT, is formed to review the circumstances surrounding 

significant events at NRC-licensed facilities. The six-member NRC inspection team includes fuel 

facility inspectors and a manager from the agency’s Region II office in Atlanta as well as specialists 

from NRC Headquarters in Rockville, Md. 

An air scrubber, which removes unwanted material from a number of processes at the plant, was 

undergoing an annual inspection and cleanout. During that work, an unexpectedly large amount of 

material was found inside the scrubber. Initially, it was thought the material did not contain a 

significant amount of uranium, but upon analysis, it was found that the uranium levels were higher in 

that area than allowed under NRC requirements in the facility license.

There were no actual safety-related consequences as a result of the accumulation of the material, 

but the potential for such consequences may have existed. The AIT will review the circumstances, 

identify the cause or causes, and ensure that the company has taken appropriate corrective actions to 

restore compliance and prevent recurrence in the future.

“This incident did not involve employee contamination or a nuclear criticality, but it shows the 

need for Westinghouse management to review some aspects of their operation,” said NRC Region II 

Administrator Cathy Haney. “Our inspection will evaluate these issues thoroughly and ensure they are 

being properly addressed.”

The team is expected to spend several days at the facility before continuing an in-office review 

of the findings. An inspection report will be issued within 30 days of the completion of the inspection.
From: Jason Dewees <Dewees.Jason@epamail.epa.gov>

To: Jodi Howard <Howard.Jodi@epamail.epa.gov>

CC: "Philip Crawford" <Philip.Crawford@erg.com>, "Colin Hayes" <Colin.Hayes@erg.com>, Barrett Parker 

<Parker.Barrett@epamail.epa.gov>, Robin Segall <Segall.Robin@epamail.epa.gov>, Peter Westlin <Westlin.Peter@epamail.epa.gov>, Ray 

Merrill <Ray.Merrill@erg.com>

Date: 2/2/2012 6:09 PM

Subject: Method 25 A RDL

Jodi,

MTG has determined that the representative detection limit(RDL) for

Method 25A for a 10 ppm propane span would be 0.5 ppmwv propane. We

arrived at this representative detection limit by surveying the typical

flame ionization analyzers in use by the testing community and

evaluating the required method criteria in Method 25A. The survey of

the instruments yielded several vender stated instrument detection

limits from 0.01 to 0.5 ppm as Carbon with one independent third party

degermation of approximately 0.8 ppm as carbon. In addition, several

instruments minium reportable resolution is 0.1 ppm as propane. The

method criteria allows for a 3% zero and span drift during performance

runs and an initial criteria of 5% of the calibration gas. The sum

allowable calibration error and drift would be approximately 0.475 ppm

as propane (using a 3.5 ppm propane span gas), which would be higher

than the instrumental detection limits.

References

40 CFR 60 Appendix A-7, Method 25A - Determination of Total Gaseous

Organic Concentration using a Flame Ionization Analyzer

http://rental.cleanair.com/sites/default/files/51cht.pdf

http://www.jum.com/products/analyzers/ve7.html

http://www.signal-group.com/Tech_sheets/mcerts2.pdf

http://www.signal-group.com/Tech_sheets/mcerts2.pdf

Jason M DeWees

USEPA/OAQPS/AQAD/MTG

109 TW Alexander Drive (E143-02)

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

(919)541-9724(Voice)/(919)541-0516(Fax)

email: dewees.jason@epa.gov
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Food and Drug Administration

          - [Docket No. 2004N-0114]

# AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Protection of Human Subjects; Recordkeeping Requirements for Institutional Review Boards” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Karen Nelson, Office of Management Programs (HFA-250), Food and Drug  Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD  20857, 301-827-1482.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In the                     **Federal Register**                     of July 22, 2004, (69 FR 43852) the agency announced that the proposed information collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507.  An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0130.  The approval expires on November 30, 2007.  A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at                     *http://www.fda.gov/​ohrms/​dockets*.                

Dated: November 26, 2004.

Jeffrey Shuren,

Assistant Commissioner for Policy.

[FR Doc. 04-26581 Filed 12-2-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S
<PAGE>
                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.104



August 7, 2007


Henry A. Jallos
505 McKinley
Plymouth, MI  48170

Dear Hank:

Please allow this letter to serve as a modification of the July 18, 2007 letter
summarizing the terms of your separation from Compuware. You will still be paid
your net salary through June 30, 2009, and the payments will be made in
accordance with Compuware payroll cycles on the 15th and last day of each month.
However, no such payments will be made to you before January 10, 2008. On
January 15, 2008, you will receive an aggregate of all net salary that would
have accrued between July 16, 2007 and January 14, 2008. Thereafter you will
receive your net salary according to the Compuware payroll cycle indicated above
until June 30, 2009.

Please indicate your acceptance of the terms of this letter by signing both
copies and returning one to me.

Sincerely,

/s/ Laura Fournier
------------------
Laura Fournier
Chief Financial Officer


Agreed to and Accepted by:

/s/ Henry A. Jallos
-------------------
Henry A. Jallos

Dated:  August 9, 2007
        --------------
EXHIBIT 10.2


AMENDMENT
NO. 2

TO THE

AMENDED AND RESTATED 2004 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN

OF CB RICHARD ELLIS GROUP, INC.

(THE “COMPANY”)


Amended by the
Company’s Board of Directors on June 1, 2007


Effective June 1,
2007, Sections 7(a) and 7(b) of the Company’s Amended and Restated 2004 Stock
Incentive Plan are hereby amended to read in their entirety as follows:


“(a)         Annual Stock
Option Grant.   An annual grant of stock options shall automatically be
made to each Eligible Director.  The
number of shares of Common Stock covered by each stock option shall be equal to
a dollar amount determined by the Board no later than the end of the prior
calendar year divided by the Fair Market Value of the Company’s Common Stock on
the date of grant, rounded to the nearest whole number.  The exercise price of each option shall be
one hundred percent (100%) of the Fair Market Value of the Common Stock subject
to the option on the date the option is granted.  The maximum term of the options shall be
seven (7) years and the options shall vest and become exercisable at a rate of
one-twelfth (1/12th)
of the grant per quarter over a period of three (3) years.  In the event of involuntary termination (such
as death, Disability, or non-reelection), vested shares must be exercised
within one (1) year of termination, but no later than seven (7) years from the
date of grant.  In the event of
resignation or other voluntary termination, the options must be exercised
within three (3) months of termination. 
In the event of removal, such Options shall lapse automatically.  Except as otherwise expressly described in
this subsection, the terms are the same as those for the standard form of
Nonstatutory Stock Options in use by the Company at the time of grant.  This grant shall be pro-rated as provided in
Subsection 7(c) below.


 (b)          Annual
Restricted Stock Bonus.   An annual grant of restricted stock shall
automatically be made in a dollar amount (the “Restricted Stock Dollar Amount”)
determined by the Board no later than the end of the prior calendar year and
equal to the number of shares (rounded to the nearest whole number) which
represents a Fair Market Value of such Restricted Stock Dollar Amount at the
time of the grant.  The restricted stock
granted shall vest in full on the third (3rd) anniversary of the date of the grant
(the “Vesting Date”) provided that the Eligible Director has served
continuously since the grant.  If an Eligible
Director leaves the Board of Directors as a result of the Eligible Director’s
death, Disability, retirement, or failure to be renominated or reelected to the
Board, any unvested restricted stock shall become vested immediately prior to
such departure in the amount of one-third (1/3) of the total number of shares
subject to the grant for each full year the Eligible Director served on the
Board of Directors after the date of grant. 
(For purposes of this subsection, “retirement” is defined as resignation
after an Eligible Director reaches sixty-five 65 years of age.)  This grant shall be pro-rated as provided in
Subsection 7(c) below.”
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3895 

To amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 

to clarify that all veterans programs are exempt from sequestration. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 3, 2012 

Mr. MILLER of Florida introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on the Budget 

A BILL 

To amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to clarify that all veterans programs 

are exempt from sequestration. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protect VA Healthcare 

5 Act of 2012’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF EXEMPTION FOR ALL VET7 ERANS PROGRAMS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 256(e)(2) of the Balanced 

9 Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3895 IH

1 amended by striking subparagraph (E) (relating to vet2 erans’ medical care). 

3 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The subsection 

4 heading of section 256(e) of the Balanced Budget and 

5 Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended by 

6 striking the comma after ‘‘CENTERS’’ and by striking 

7 ‘‘AND VETERANS’ MEDICAL CARE’’. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS