alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE ROBERTO LAURENCE

- LOPEZ, AKA Eber Barrosa

- Alero,

Petitioner,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 18

- 72072 Agency No. A200

- 150

- 579

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 3 , 20 20 * * Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges. Jose Roberto Laurence

- Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico , petitions pro

se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for
deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our

* 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

MAR 11 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 18

- 72072

jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Garcia

- Milian v. Holder , 755 F.3d 1026, 103 1 (9th Cir. 2014) . We dismiss in part and grant in part, and we remand. We lack jurisdiction to consider Lauren ce - Lopez’s contentions that the IJ failed to conduct a full and fair hearing and that the IJ abused his discretion in denying Laurence

- Lopez’s motion for a continuance because Laurence

- Lopez
failed to raise these issues before the BIA

. See Barron v. Ashcr oft , 358 F.3d 674,
677

- 78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency).
We do not consider the materials Laurence

- Lopez references in his opening
brief and in his letter to the court received on February 7, 2020 that are not part of
the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS , 79 F.3d 955, 963

- 64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc). In denying Laurence

- Lopez ’s deferral of removal under CAT claim, it is
unclear from the record whether the agency ’s analysis of the risk of future torture
and state action considered that one of the individuals that committed the past

torture Laurence

- Lopez experienced was a police officer

. See Madrigal v. Holder , 716 F.3d 4 99, 509 (9th Cir. 2013) (remanding for agency to consider all evidence3 18

- 72072

in assessing likelihood of torture) ; Cole v. Holder , 659 F.3d 762, 772 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[W]here potentially dispositive testimony and documentary evidence is submitted, the BIA must gi ve reasoned consideration to that evidence.”)

. Thus, we grant the petition for review and remand Laurence

- Lopez ’s CAT claim to the agency for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. See INS v.
Ventura , 537 U.S. 12, 16

- 18 (2002) (per curiam)

. The government must bear the costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; GRANTED in part ; REMANDED.
----

| (1)   | The                Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or                15(d)                of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));                and |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2)   | The                information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|         |                                                                                           |                                    |
|--------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|
|         |                                                                                           |
|    |                                                                                      |                               |
|         | By:                                                                                  | /s/ Gary              L. Rainwater |
|         | Gary              L. Rainwater                                                                 |
|         | Chairman                andChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive                Officer) |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

R. MICHAEL DESALLE, 

Plaintiff, 

 v. 

COLUMBIA COLLEGE CHICAGO, 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) Case No. 1:12-CV-04923

) 

) Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman

) 

) Magistrate Judge Susan E. Cox 

) 

) 

) 

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), Plaintiff R. Michael 

DeSalle and Defendant Columbia College Chicago, through their undersigned counsel, 

hereby stipulate that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant may be dismissed with prejudice. 

Each party is to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees. 

Dated: November 22, 2013 

 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Jeannil D. Boji___________________ 

One of the Defendant’s Attorneys 

Craig T. Boggs (ARDC # 06198435) 

Jeannil D. Boji (ARDC # 06292419) 

Patrick Collins 

PERKINS COIE LLP 

131 South Dearborn Street, Suite 1700 

Chicago, IL 60603-5559 

Telephone: (312) 324-8400 

Facsimile: (313) 324-9400 

cboggs@perkinscoie.com 

jboji@perkinscoie.com 

Attorneys for Defendant 

/s/ Caryn C. Lederer________________ 

One of the Plaintiff’s Attorneys 

Matthew J. Piers (ARDC# 2206161) 

Caryn C. Lederer (ARDC# 6304495) 

HUGHES SOCOL PIERS RESNICK & DYM,

LTD. 

Three First National Plaza 

70 W. Madison St., Suite 4000 

Chicago, IL 60602 

Telephone: 312-580-0100 

mpiers@hsplegal.com 

clederer@hsplegal.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Case: 1:12-cv-04923 Document #: 51 Filed: 11/22/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:243
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I hereby certify that on November 22, 2013, the foregoing document was 

electronically filed with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send 

notification to all counsel of record, including the following: 

Craig T. Boggs 

Jeannil D. Boji 

PERKINS COIE LLP 

131 South Dearborn Street, Suite 1700 

Chicago, IL 60603-5559 

cboggs@perkinscoie.com

jboji@perkinscoie.com

/s/ Caryn C. Lederer 

 One of the Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Matthew J. Piers 

Caryn C. Lederer 

HUGHES SOCOL PIERS RESNICK & DYM, LTD. 

70 W. Madison St. Suite 4000 

Chicago, IL 60602 

312-580-0100 

Case: 1:12-cv-04923 Document #: 51 Filed: 11/22/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:244
11. Amendments. This Agreement may be amended only by a written Agreement signed by the parties.12. If the Bank shall acquire an insurance policy or any other asset in connection with theliabilities assumed by it hereunder, it is expressly understood and agreed that neither Directornor any beneficiary of Director shall have any right with respect to, or claim against, such policyor in the title to such other asset. Such policy or asset shall not be deemed to be held under anytrust for the benefit of Director or his beneficiaries or to be held in any way as collateralsecurity for the fulfilling of the obligations of the Bank under this Agreement except as may beexpressly            provided by the terms of such policy or other asset. It shall be, and remain, ageneral, unpledged, unrestricted asset of the Bank.13. This agreement shall be construed under and governed by the laws of the State of Pennsylvania.14. Interpretation. Wherever appropriate in this Agreement, words used in the singular shallinclude the plural and the masculine shall include the feminine gender.15. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of any successor of the Bank andany such successor shall be deemed substituted for the Bank under the terms of this Agreement. Asused herein, the term “successor” shall include any person, corporation or other businessentity which at any time, whether by merger, purchase or otherwise, acquires all or substantiallyall of the stock, assets or business of the Bank.16. If the Bank’s marginal income tax bracket is different from 46% at the time deferred incomepayments are made under this Agreement to the Director or his beneficiary (ies), the payments maybe adjusted by the Board of            Directors to reflect that change. The following formula could beused to calculate the change in benefits: Monthly Income (As Shown) X .54 divided by 1 — TaxBracket17. All compensation provided by this Agreement is in addition to that which is provided under theDirector’s Compensation Agreement dated January 1, 1982.
#### 403.104-5 [Reserved]
# C_2017145EN.01000102.xml

| 9.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 145/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 145/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8099 — Nissan/Mitsubishi)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 145/02)

On 5 October 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 32016M8099. 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 32016M8099. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
Passenger Manifest Information 

This is the summary statement required by 14 C.F.R. 243.13 as to the procedures of 

Star Flyer Inc. (“Star Flyer”) for collecting, maintaining and disseminating passenger 

manifest information in accordance with 14 C.F.R. Part 243. 

Star Flyer will adopt the following procedures to all covered flight segment (as defined 

in 14 C.F.R. 243.3) . 

1. Collection Method 

Every passenger is required to provide a passport at the Check-in counter for a 

covered flight segment. Passengers having United States passports will be asked to 

provide the information required under section 243.7(a)(1). They will also be 

solicited to provide additional information under section 243.7(a) (2).If Star Flyer 

has not obtained the full name of a U.S. citizen passenger, the passenger will be 

denied boarding. 

2. Transmission Method 

All passenger manifest information will be retained by Star Flyer’s division in 

charge until all U.S. citizen passengers on a covered flight segment have 

disembarked from the aircraft. 

In the event of an aviation disaster involving Star Flyer’s aircraft, Star Flyer will 

promptly inform to the Managing Director of Overseas Citizen Services, Bureau of 

Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of State and transmit the required manifest data 

concerning any U.S. citizen passengers. 

Star Flyer will also provide such information (upon request) to the National 

Transportation Safety Board. 

3. Contact 

Star Flyer will provide, under separate cover, the name and telephone number of a 

person or persons who will be available at any time during a covered flight segment 

and who can be consulted concerning information gathered pursuant to the 

passenger manifest rule.
#### 4.600 Scope of subpart.

This subpart prescribes uniform reporting requirements for the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS).
States That Submitted Applications for the

FY 2014 Preschool Development Grants

The U.S. Departments of Education and Health and Human Services announced that 

35 states and Puerto Rico submitted applications for the FY 2014 Preschool 

Development Grants competition. States are listed alphabetically.

Preschool Development Grants -- DEVELOPMENT GRANTS

1. Alabama

2. Arizona

3. Hawaii

4. Mississippi

5. Missouri

6. Montana

7. Nevada

8. New Hampshire

9. Puerto Rico

Preschool Development Grants -- EXPANSION GRANTS

1. Arkansas

2. California

3. Colorado

4. Connecticut

5. Delaware

6. Georgia

7. Illinois

8. Kentucky

9. Louisiana

10. Maine

11. Maryland

12. Massachusetts

13. Minnesota

14. New Jersey

15. New Mexico

16. New York

17. North Carolina

18. Ohio

19. Oregon

20. Pennsylvania

21. Rhode Island

22. South Carolina

23. Tennessee

24. Texas

25. Vermont

26. Virginia

27. Washington State
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 26 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 26

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Disapproving the action of the District of Columbia Council in 
            approving the Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress disapproves 
of the action of the District of Columbia Council described as follows: 
The

              

 Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022 (D.C. Act 24-789), enacted by the 
Council of the District of Columbia on January 17, 2023, and 
transmitted to Congress pursuant to section 602(c)(1) of the District 
of Columbia Home Rule Act on January 27, 2023.

            Passed the House of Representatives February 9, 2023.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
118th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                             H. J. RES. 26

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

    Disapproving the action of the District of Columbia Council in 
            approving the Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022.
```
#### 246.270 Safety of facilities, infrastructure, and equipment for military operations.
### IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2023 ND 110

In the Interest of I.X.F., a child

Grand Fo rks County Human Service Zone, Petitioner and Appellee

v. I.X.F., a child, E.L.F., Jr., father, Respondents

and
Q.D.H., mother, Respondent and Appellant

No. 20230112

Appeal from the Juvenile Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central Judicial District, the Honorable John A. Thelen , Judge.

AFFIRMED

.

Per Curiam

. Jacqueline A. Gaddie, Assistant State’s Attorney, Grand Forks, ND

, for petitioner and appellee; submitted on brief.

Erica L. Chisholm, Wahpeton, ND , for respondent and appellant; submitted on brief.1 Interest of I.X.F. No. 20230112

Per Curiam

. [¶1] Q.H. appeals from a juvenile court judgment terminating her parental rights to I.X.F. She argues the court erred when it found I.X.F. is in need of protection and the conditions and causes of the need for protection are likely to continue. We conclude the court’s finding s are not clearly erroneous a nd the court did not abuse its discretion when it terminated Q.H.’s parental rights. See Interest of A.C. , 2022 ND 123, ¶ 5, 975 N.W.2d 567 (the clearly erroneous standard of review applies to factual findings made in a termination of parental rights proce eding); see also Interest of A.P. , 2022 ND 131, ¶ 2, 976 N.W.2d 244 ( whether terminating parental rights would promote the child’s
welfare is left to the court’s discretion when the required elements are proven by clear and convincing evidence). We summari ly affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).

[¶2] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
Daniel J. Crothers
Lisa Fair McEvers
Jerod E. Tufte Douglas A. Bahr
EXHIBIT 10.30


                          AMENDMENT 3 TO EXHIBIT A

            LIMAGRAIN GENETICS INTERNATIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT


EXHIBIT A to LIMAGRAIN GENETICS INTERNATIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT dated July 1, 
1994, by and between LIMAGRAIN GENETICS INTERNATIONAL and LG SEEDS, INC., is 
hereby amended as follows:

For the one-year period beginning on July 1, 1997, LG Seeds, Inc. agrees to 
pay a fee (the "Annual Fee") of  $200,000 for services rendered under the 
Agreement.

All other terms and conditions remain the same.



                            							       LIMAGRAIN GENETICS
LG SEEDS, INC.				                        INTERNATIONAL S.A.

/s/ B. Carette                             /s/ C. Lescoffit

B. Carette                                 C. Lescoffit
President and Chief Operating Officer      Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>                                                Exhibit 10.14






                                  January 22, 1996



Mr. Stephen M. Wolf
Rock Hill Farm
Route 701 at Route 709
The Plains, Virginia  22171


Dear Mr. Wolf:

     This letter confirms that in connection with the Employment
Agreement dated as of January 22, 1996 between USAir, Inc. (the
"Company") and you, the Company has agreed to provide you with the
additional benefits described herein.

     For the first two years of your employment with the Company,
you will be reimbursed for living expenses incurred by you,
including expenses for living accommodations near the Company's
headquarters, in the amount of $75,000 per year.   

     While employed by the Company, you will be reimbursed for
reasonable expenses incurred for tax/financial planning up to an
annual maximum of $25,000.  The tax and/or financial planner you
select must be approved by the Company.

     Reimbursement will be made as expenses are incurred upon your
submission of appropriate documentation.

     In the event USAir Group, Inc. ("Group") for any reason is
unable to award you the stock options or shares of restricted stock
described in our January 16, 1996 letter agreement, Group and/or
the Company will award you a substitute award, reasonably
acceptable to you, with value and terms substantially identical to
the value and terms such options and/or shares of restricted stock
would have had.








                               1


<PAGE>

Mr. Stephen M. Wolf
January 22, 1996



     Please indicate with your signature below if the foregoing
accurately sets forth our agreement on the subject matter hereof.

                    
                              Sincerely yours,

                              /s/Michelle V. Bryan

                              Michelle V. Bryan
                              Vice President, Deputy             
                               General Counsel and               
                                 Secretary

Agreed:

/s/Stephen Wolf
___________________________
     Stephen Wolf




























                               2
# C_2020146EN.01000101.xml

| 4.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

30 April 2020

(2020/C 146/01)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0876 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 115,87 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4584 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,86905 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,6639 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0558 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 159,30 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 11,1840 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,097 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 352,72 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,5336 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,8431 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 7,5979 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6598 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5077 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,4300 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7705 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5324 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 313,09 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 19,6572 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,6665 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5790 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 178,05 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6767 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 54,772 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 79,8920 |
| THB | Thai baht | 35,216 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 5,8565 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 25,7953 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 81,6108 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0876

JPY

Japanese yen

115,87

DKK

Danish krone

7,4584

GBP

Pound sterling

0,86905

SEK

Swedish krona

10,6639

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0558

ISK

Iceland króna

159,30

NOK

Norwegian krone

11,1840

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,097

HUF

Hungarian forint

352,72

PLN

Polish zloty

4,5336

RON

Romanian leu

4,8431

TRY

Turkish lira

7,5979

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6598

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5077

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,4300

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7705

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5324

KRW

South Korean won

1 313,09

ZAR

South African rand

19,6572

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,6665

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5790

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 178,05

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6767

PHP

Philippine peso

54,772

RUB

Russian rouble

79,8920

THB

Thai baht

35,216

BRL

Brazilian real

5,8565

MXN

Mexican peso

25,7953

INR

Indian rupee

81,6108

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---