alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
C HARLES NGETHE, AKA C ha rle s M uc ha f, AKA C ha

rle s Nge the M uc ha i, AKA C ha

rle s M . Nge the , Pe t i tione r,
v. JEFFER SON B . SESSIONS III, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 16-70454 Age n c y No. A205-464-980
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Oc tobe r 18, 2017 * * San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : IKUTA a

nd HUR W ITZ, C irc uit Judge s , a

nd M OLLOY, * * * Distric t Judge
.



# FIL ED OCT 20 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

* * * The Honora

ble Dona ld W
. M olloy , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the D istric t of M onta

na , sitting by

de signa t ion.C ha

rle s Nge the pe titions for re vie w of the B o ard of Im m igration Appe a ls’ s (B IA) orde r dism issing his a ppe a l of the de n ia l of re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(C A T) by an Im m i gra tion Judge(IJ). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. The B IA’ s de te rm ination tha t Nge the fa ile d to e s ta

blish tha t he is “ m ore like ly tha n not to betorture d,” 8 C .F.R
. § 1208.17(a), if he re turns to Ke ny a is supporte d by substa

ntia l e vide nc e . While the e vide nc e indic a t e s tha t “ [v] iole nc e
a ga inst LGB T pe rsons [i] s a proble m ” (and in som e c a se s, the polic e we re involve d in the viole nc e ), polic e have inte rve ne d to stop a tta c ks in othe r c a s e s a

nd the re is
e vide nc e tha

t the situa tion of LGB T pe rsons in Ke ny a is im proving. B e c a

use the
e vide nc e in the re c ord is inc onc lusive , it doe s not c om pe l the c onc lusion tha

t Nge the fa c e s a

n individualiz e d risk of be ing torture d in Ke ny a if re turne d. Se e W ak k ary v . Holde r , 558 F.3d 1049, 1068 (9th C ir. 2009). W e re je c t Nge the ’ s a

rgum e nt tha

t the IJ e rre d by fa iling to re vie w the 2014 Stat e De p artm e n t R e port. The re is no indic at ion tha t the 2014 R e port c o n ta ine d

“ highly probative or pote n tia lly dispositive e vide nc e ” not inc lude d e lse whe re in the re c ord, pa

rtic ula rly in the 2013 Sta

te De p a rtm e nt R e port, to whic h the IJ m a de spe c ific re fe re nc e . C

olev . Holde r , 659 F.3d 762, 772 (9th C ir. 2011). Nor did the IJ e rr by fa iling to m e ntion othe r e vide nc e subm i tte d by Nge the ; the IJ is not
2re quire d to “p arse or re fute on the re c ord e a c h individual a rgum e n t or pie c e of
e vide nc e offe re d by

the pe titione r.” N

ajmabadi v

. Holde r , 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th C ir. 2010) (c ita

tion om itte d). PE T IT IO N DE NIE D

3
#### 27.204 Patented technology under trade agreements.
Case: 1:12-cv-05586 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/16/12 Page 1 of 17 PageID #:1
Case: 1:12-cv-05586 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/16/12 Page 2 of 17 PageID #:2
Case: 1:12-cv-05586 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/16/12 Page 3 of 17 PageID #:3
Case: 1:12-cv-05586 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/16/12 Page 4 of 17 PageID #:4
Case: 1:12-cv-05586 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/16/12 Page 5 of 17 PageID #:5
Case: 1:12-cv-05586 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/16/12 Page 6 of 17 PageID #:6
Case: 1:12-cv-05586 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/16/12 Page 7 of 17 PageID #:7
Case: 1:12-cv-05586 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/16/12 Page 8 of 17 PageID #:8
Case: 1:12-cv-05586 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/16/12 Page 9 of 17 PageID #:9
Case: 1:12-cv-05586 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/16/12 Page 10 of 17 PageID #:10
Case: 1:12-cv-05586 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/16/12 Page 11 of 17 PageID #:11
Case: 1:12-cv-05586 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/16/12 Page 12 of 17 PageID #:12
Case: 1:12-cv-05586 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/16/12 Page 13 of 17 PageID #:13
Case: 1:12-cv-05586 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/16/12 Page 14 of 17 PageID #:14
Case: 1:12-cv-05586 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/16/12 Page 15 of 17 PageID #:15
Case: 1:12-cv-05586 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/16/12 Page 16 of 17 PageID #:16
Case: 1:12-cv-05586 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/16/12 Page 17 of 17 PageID #:17
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A) THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT JANUARY 31, 1998 AND THE CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JANUARY 31, 1998
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH (B) CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                         491,901
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  813,376
<ALLOWANCES>                                    20,946
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         421,680
<DEPRECIATION>                                 379,662
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,063,585
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      5,021,774
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,723,765
<OTHER-SE>                                  (2,827,856)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,063,585
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               884,729
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,207,181
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             248,975
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (322,452)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (322,452)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 379,227
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    56,775
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .05
        

</TABLE>
28.307-1 Group insurance plans. ( a ) *Prior approval requirement.* Under cost-reimbursement contracts, before buying insurance under a group insurance plan, the contractor must submit the plan for approval, in accordance with agency regulations. Any change in benefits provided under an approved plan that can reasonably be expected to increase significantly the cost to the Government requires similar approval.
( b ) *Premium refunds or credits.* The plan shall provide for the Government to share in any premium refunds or credits paid or otherwise allowed to the contractor. In determining the extent of the Government's share in any premium refunds or credits, any special reserves and other refunds to which the contractor may be entitled in the future shall be taken into account.
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Electronic & Missile Facilities, Inc., and Emerson-Garden Electric Company, Inc.—Caribbean.

Motion for a stay granted on the terms and conditions set forth in the order to show cause dated June 7, 1962 and on the further condition that the appellant procures the record on appeal and appellant’s points to be served and filed on or before August 30, 1962, with notice of argument for September 11, 1962, said appeal to be argued or submitted when reached. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente, McNally, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM BALANCE
SHEETS, STATEMENTS OF INCOME, AND STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOW AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                             419
<SECURITIES>                                       591
<RECEIVABLES>                                      375
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          42,969
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,046
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  36,999
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,000
<BONDS>                                         23,929
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,710
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,012
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    36,999
<SALES>                                          2,070
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,138
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,248
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   146
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 469
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    274
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                274
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       274
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .18
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

TERRENCE J. HANCOCK, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, ) CIVIL ACTION

)

vs. ) NO. 12 C 2611

)

N. A. D. VENTURES, INC., ) JUDGE JOHN W. DARRAH

an Illinois corporation, )

)

Defendant. )

MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND JUDGMENT

NOWCOME Plaintiffs, bytheir attorneys, and move for entryof judgment bydefault against

Defendant, N. A. D. VENTURES, INC., an Illinois corporation, in the total amount of $13,374.53,

plus Plaintiffs’ court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees in the amount of $768.75. 

On April 17, 2012, the Summons and Complaint was served on the Registered Agent by

tendering a copy of said documents to her personally at her place of business (a copy of the

Summons and Affidavit of Service is attached hereto). Therefore, Defendant’s answer was due on

May 8, 2012. As Defendant has failed to timelyanswer the Complaint, Plaintiffs respectfully request

entry of default and judgment.

/s/ Jennifer L. Dunitz-Geiringer 

Case: 1:12-cv-02611 Document #: 7 Filed: 05/24/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:12
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned, an attorney of record, hereby certifies that she electronically filed the

foregoing document (Motion) with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, and further

certifies that I have mailed the above-referenced document by United States Mail to the following

non-CM/ECF participant on or before the hour of 5:00 p.m. this 24th day of May 2012:

Ms. Dana J. Trumbull, Registered Agent/President

N. A. D. Ventures, Inc.

997 Reading Street

Bartlett, IL 60103-4558

/s/ Jennifer L. Dunitz-Geiringer 

Jennifer L. Dunitz-Geiringer

Attorney for Plaintiffs

BAUM SIGMAN AUERBACH & NEUMAN, LTD.

200 West Adams Street, Suite 2200

Chicago, IL 60606-5231

Bar No.: 6237001

Telephone: (312) 236-4316

Facsimile: (312) 236-0241

E-Mail: jdunitz.geiringer@baumsigman.com

I:\731exc\N. A. D. Ventures\#23875\motion.jdg.df.wpd

Case: 1:12-cv-02611 Document #: 7 Filed: 05/24/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:13
# C_2016453EN.01000201.xml

| 3.12.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 453/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.12.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 453/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8218 — Egeria Industrials/Clondalkin)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 453/03)

On 30 November 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8218. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8218. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
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

LAURA T. WILLIAMS,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

LOS ANGELES JOB CORPS; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 12-55015

D.C. No. 2:11-cv-00897-SJO-PJW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 14, 2013** 

Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Laura T. Williams appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing her employment action alleging violations of federal and state law. We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Pareto v. FDIC,

139 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1998). We affirm.

FILED

MAY 22 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 12-55015

The district court properly dismissed Williams’s action alleging breach of

contract, harassment, discrimination, defamation, and wrongful termination

because Williams alleged so few facts that the court could infer only the possibility

of misconduct. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (to survive a

motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must allege facts that “allow[] the court to draw the

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged”);

Pareto, 139 F.3d at 699 (“[C]onclusory allegations of law and unwarranted

inferences are not sufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss.”). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Williams’s motion

for default judgment because defendants promptly re-filed their motion to dismiss

without the original clerical error and the delay did not prejudice Williams. See

Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986) (setting forth standard of

review and factors the court may consider in deciding whether to enter default

judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55). 

Williams’s contention that the district court treated her unfairly is

unsupported by the record. 

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Alan Vituli, Chief Executive Officer of Carrols Restaurant Group, Inc. (the
Company), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Quarterly Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                              
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                              
|/s/ ALAN VITULI                                                               
|Alan Vituli Chairman of the Board and Chief
Executive Officer November 9, 2007
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-10159 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus FRANCISCO SALAS-VELOS, also known as Francisco Velos-Salas, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:00-CR-277-ALL-L

-------------------- October 29, 2001 Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Francisco Salas-Velos appeals the 46-month sentence imposed following his plea of guilty to a charge of being found in the United States after deportation, a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He contends that the felony conviction that resulted in his increased sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) was an element of the offense that should have been charged in the indictment. Salas-Velos acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. UnitedNo. 01-10159 -2- States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review in light of the decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000)
. 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 , 121 S. Ct. 1214 (2001). Salas-Velos’ argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres . The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance or dismissal of the appeal. The motion is GRANTED to the extent that affirmance is requested.
```

[111th Congress Public Law 170]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[[Page 124 STAT. 1193]]

Public Law 111-170
111th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To amend title 39, United States Code, to clarify the instances in which 
   the term ``census'' may appear on mailable matter. <<NOTE: May 24, 
                         2010 -  [H.R. 5148]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. REQUIREMENT FOR MAIL BEARING THE TERM ``CENSUS'' ON THE 
                              ENVELOPE OR OUTSIDE COVER OR 
                              WRAPPER.

    (a) Matter Soliciting the Purchase of a Product or Service.--Section 
3001(h) of title 39, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``; or on which the term 
        `census' is visible through the envelope or outside cover or 
        wrapper'' after ``or which bears the term `census' on the 
        envelope or outside cover or wrapper''; and
            (2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``or matter on which the 
        term `census' is visible through the envelope or outside cover 
        or wrapper'' after ``In the case of matter bearing the term 
        `census' on the envelope or outside cover or wrapper''.

    (b) Matter Soliciting Information or Contribution of Funds.--Section 
3001(i) of title 39, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``; or on which the term 
        `census' is visible through the envelope or outside cover or 
        wrapper'' after ``or which bears the term `census' on the 
        envelope or outside cover or wrapper''; and
            (2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``or matter on which the 
        term `census' is visible through the envelope or outside cover 
        or wrapper'' after ``In the case of matter bearing the term 
        `census' on the envelope or outside cover or wrapper''.

    Approved May 24, 2010.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 5148:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 156 (2010):
            Apr. 28, considered and passed House.
            May 5, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
23.103 Policy. ( a ) Agencies shall procure sustainable products and services (as defined in 2.101) to the maximum extent practicable. ( 1 ) Procuring sustainable products and services is considered practicable, unless the agency cannot acquire products or services— ( i ) Competitively within a reasonable performance schedule;
( ii ) That meet reasonable performance requirements; or
( iii ) At a reasonable price (see 23.103(a)(2)).
( 2 ) When considering whether the price of a sustainable product is reasonable, agencies should consider whether the product is cost-effective over the life of the product. For ENERGY STAR® or Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP)-designated products, a price is reasonable if it is cost-effective over the life of the product taking energy cost savings into account (42 U.S.C. 8259b(b)(2)). Life-cycle cost savings tools for energy-efficient products are available at *https://www.energystar.gov/buildings/save_energy_commercial_buildings/ways_save/energy_efficient_products* and *https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/tech-lcoe.html .*
( b ) When procuring sustainable products and services, agencies shall— ( 1 ) Ensure compliance with applicable statutory purchasing program requirements (see 23.107); and
( 2 ) Prioritize multi-attribute sustainable products and services (see 23.104(c)(2)).
( c ) Regarding products under contract actions for services or construction, the contractor is required to provide products that meet the definition of sustainable products and services at 2.101, if the products are— ( 1 ) Delivered to the Government;
( 2 ) Furnished by the contractor for use by the Government;
( 3 ) Incorporated into the construction of a public building or public work; or
( 4 ) Acquired by the contractor for use in performing services under a Government contract where the cost of the products is a direct cost to a Government contract (versus costs which are normally applied to a contractor's general and administrative expenses or indirect costs).