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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TOMAS TUFINO-PLUMA, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 16-71528 

Agency No. A205-710-547 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 13, 2018**

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

Tomas Tufino-Pluma, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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, relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and voluntary 

 

* 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

FEB 21 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

departure. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for 

substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 

1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for 

review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary denial of voluntary 

departure. See Esquivel-Garcia v. Holder, 593 F.3d 1025, 1030 (9th Cir. 2010);

Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005) (absent a colorable 

legal or constitutional claim, the court lacks jurisdiction to review discretionary 

determinations).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Tufino-Pluma

failed to establish a nexus between the harm he fears and a protected ground. See 

Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s “desire to be 

free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence . . . bears

no nexus to a protected ground.”). Thus, we deny the petition as to TufinoPluma’s asylum and withholding of removal claims.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because 

Tufino-Pluma failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured by 

or with the consent or acquiescence of the Mexican government. See Aden v. 

Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (2009). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
Editorial Note on Part 878
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 878 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 878.4360 Scalp cooling system to reduce the likelihood of chemotherapy-induced alopecia. ( a ) *Identification.* A scalp cooling system to reduce the likelihood of chemotherapy-induced alopecia is a prescription device intended to reduce the frequency and severity of alopecia during chemotherapy in which alopecia-inducing chemotherapeutic agents are used.
( b ) *Classification* —Class II (special controls). The special controls for this device are: ( 1 ) Non-clinical performance testing must demonstrate that the device meets all design specifications and performance requirements, and that the device performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use. This information must include testing to demonstrate accuracy of the temperature control mechanism.
( 2 ) Performance testing must demonstrate the electromagnetic compatibility and electrical safety of the device.
( 3 ) Software verification, validation, and hazard analysis must be performed.
( 4 ) The patient contacting components of the device must be demonstrated to be biocompatible. Material names must be provided.
( 5 ) Labeling must include the following: ( i ) A statement describing the potential risk of developing scalp metastasis.
( ii ) Information on the patient population and chemotherapeutic agents/regimen for which the device has been demonstrated to be effective.
( iii ) A summary of the non-clinical and/or clinical testing pertinent to use of the device.
( iv ) A summary of the device technical parameters, including temperature cooling range and duration of cooling.
( v ) A summary of the device- and procedure-related adverse events pertinent to use of the device.
( vi ) Information on how the device operates and the typical course of treatment.
( 6 ) Patient labeling must be provided and must include: ( i ) Relevant contraindications, warnings, precautions, and adverse effects/complications.
( ii ) Information on how the device operates and the typical course of treatment.
( iii ) Information on the patient population for which there is clinical evidence of effectiveness.
( iv ) The potential risks and benefits associated with use of the device.
( v ) Postoperative care instructions.
( vi ) A statement describing the potential risk of developing scalp metastasis.
[81 FR 7453, Feb. 12, 2016]
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > The Proposed IMF Agreement on Gold

              																	United States. Congress. Joint Economic Committee. Subcommittee on International Economics					 and 	Ninety-Fourth Congress, 1975-1977. 						*The Proposed IMF Agreement on Gold : Report of the Subcommittee on International Economics of the Joint Economic Committee, Congress of the United States, Together with Supplementary Views and Comments*,												Washington: 								U.S. Government Printing Office, 										December 17, 1975,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/887,			accessed on August 25, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
# Plant **Aw ard Specification Sheet** 

OMB Control No. 2060

- 0347 **Date Plant name as it will appear on Certificate**  **Company name as it will appear on Certificate**  

### Corporate energy **manager contact information** Name Title Organization Address 1 Address 2 City State Zip co de Em ail Phone 

### Organization/Plant Owner’s Chief Executive Officer information: Name Title Organization Address 1 Address 2 City State Zip code Em ail Phone

### Professional Engineer information

Name Title Organiz ation Address 1 Address 2 City State Zip code Em ail Phone License number



### Plant Owner information: Company or Parent Company Name Address 1 Address 2 City State Zip code W eb address: Phone

NOTE: Unless speci fied otherwise, all recognition materials (the bronze plaque, the banner/flag graphic, and the letter of congratulations) will be addressed to and sent to the Corporate Energy Manager at the location specified above. The letter of congratulations for the CEO will be sent directly to the address provided for the CEO. Please specify any other information/requests for distribution of recognition materials in the space below. The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to ran ge up to 15 minutes per response. Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniq ues to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N W, W ashington, D.C. 20460. Include the OMB control number in any corresp ondence. Do not send the completed form to this address. EPA Form 5900

- 265
<PAGE>

                                                              EXHIBIT 10.(a). 2.

                            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 Annual Report of Tefron Ltd. (the "Company") on
Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2002, 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:

          1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Date: April 2, 2003             /s/ Yosef Shiran
                                -----------------------
                                Name:  Yosef Shiran
                                Title: Chief Executive Officer


Date: April 2, 2003             /s/ Gil Rozen
                                -----------------------
                                Name:  Gil Rozen
                                Title: Chief Financial Officer
# C_2015016EN.01004901.xml

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/49

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 19 November 2014 — EH v Commission

(Case F-42/14) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Remuneration - Family allowances - Rule against cumulation of national allowances and allowances under the Staff Regulations - Official’s spouse in receipt of national family allowances - No declaration by the official to his administration of a change in his personal circumstances - Disciplinary proceedings - Disciplinary penalty - Demotion in step - Proportionality - Statement of reasons - Mitigating circumstances - Failure by the administration to exercise due care and attention)

(2015/C 016/73)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: EH (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Ehrbar, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision to impose a penalty on the applicant of demotion by three steps on grounds of infringement of the rule against cumulation of national family allowances and family allowances under the Staff Regulations.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Declares that EH is to bear his own costs and orders him to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that EH is to bear his own costs and orders him to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 212, 7/7/2014, p. 45.

---
SERVICE 1ST BANK
                                (Graphic Omitted)

                                  EXHIBIT 10.9

February 26, 2001

Robert Bloch
602 Cool Valley Road
Paso Robles, CA 93446

RE:  Offer Sheet

Dear Bob,

Pursuant to my recent conversation coupled with the ratification of the Board we
are prepared to offer you the position of Chief Financial Officer, subject to
regulatory approval. I am delighted with the opportunity to join forces as we
build a new Financial Services Depository! The terms of this position are as
follows:

        o  Salary:            $95,000.00 per year
        o  Bonus:             $5,000.00 - payable one year anniversary
        o  Stock Options:     $15,000 shares - 3 year vesting
        o  Title:             Executive Vice President/Chief Financial Officer
        o  Auto Allowance:    $400.00 per month
        o  Moving:            $3,000,000 allowance
        o  CQG:               The Bank will provide this facility
        o  Insurance:         Full access to the normal package which includes:
                              medical, dental, life, LTD, vision
        o  401K:              Availability subject to the terms of the Plan
                              (not currently matching)

I believe the foregoing captures the essential points of our offer. I included a
package for you to complete. Please return to me as soon as possible so that we
may receive regulatory authorization. Additionally, I plan to receive
confirmation on your title and options from the Board as soon as we receive a
"non-objection" from the regulators.

Please let me know if you have any further questions, otherwise indicate your
acceptance on a copy of this letter and return to my attention with the
completed package.

Sincerely,

/s/ JOHN BROOKS
--------------------------
John Brooks
Chairman
Chief Executive Officer


Accepted by: /s/ Robert E. Bloch        Date: 2/26/01
            ----------------------------     --------

      2800 W. March Lane, Suite 120 - Stockton, CA 95219 - (209) 956-7800
                               (209) 956-9633 fax
   60 W. Tenth Street - Tracy, CA 95376 - (209) 830-6995 - (209) 830-6891 fax
                             www.service1stbank.com
                             ----------------------
# C_2014261EN.01005101.xml

| 11.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/51

---

Action brought on 26 June 2014 — Banco de Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria v Commission

(Case T-482/14)

2014/C 261/80

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Banco de Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to that decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to that decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;

| — | in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery;

| — | in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid;

| — | annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities; and

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-700/13 Bankia v Commission.

Bankia

Commission

---
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER
Appellate case name: Jennifer Ann Larkins

- Ruby v. Austin County, Sealy Independent School District, and Austin County Emergency Services District #1

Appellate case number s : 01

- 2 1

- 00 496

- CV

Trial court case number: 2020V

- 0165

Trial court: 155th District Court of Austin County

Our opinion and judgment in this appeal issued on December 29, 2022. The Court denied appellant Jennifer Larkins

- Ruby’s motion for rehearing on January 19, 2023. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 49.1; see also T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 19.1 (b)

. Subsequently, Larkins

- Ruby filed three documents on January 19 and 23, 2023. Each document expressly states that it is not a motion for rehearing. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 49.1 , 49.4

. Ten days have passed without a response from appellees Austin County, Sealy I ndependent School District, and Austin County Emergency Services District #1. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 10.3(a). To the extent these three documents are not motions for rehearing, they

are denied

. It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ April L. Farris

Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Justices Goodman, Countiss , and Farris.

Date: February 17, 2023
|   | 1. | The 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company. |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  | November 15, 2010 |   | By:    | /s/ Julie Smolyansky                                                     |   |
|--------|-------------------|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |              |   |   | Julie SmolyankyChief Executive Officer, President and Director |   |

----
# C_2015056EN.01002301.xml

| 16.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 56/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 56/23

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 8 December 2014 — STC v Commission

(Case T-355/14 R)

((Interim measures - Public services contracts - Tendering procedure - Construction and maintenance of a tri-generation plant - Rejection of tender submitted by a tenderer - Application for interim measures - Prima facie case not made out))

(2015/C 056/32)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: STC SpA (Forlì, Italy) (represented by: A. Marelli and G. Delucca, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Cappelletti, L. Di Paolo and F. Moro, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

In essence (i) an application to suspend the operation of the Commission’s decision of 3 April 2014 in which the Commission rejected the tender submitted by STC in tendering procedure JRC IPR 2013 C04 0031 OC for the construction and maintenance of a tri-generation plant with a gas turbine on the Ispra (Italy) site of its Joint Research Centre (JRC) (OJ 2013/S 137-237146), the decision in which the Commission awarded the contract to CPL Concordia and consequently all other subsequent decisions; and (ii) an application to suspend the operation of the Commission’s decision to refuse the request for access to the documents and an interim measure to allow the full exercise of the right of access to the tender documents.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---
### UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC

National Business AircraftAssociation, KrnegerAviation, Inc., Harrison Ford, Justice Aviation, Kim Davidson Aviation, Inc., Aero Film, Yonri Bujko, James Ross, Wondeful Citrus LLC and Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association Complainants 

# v. City ofSantaMonica, California Respondent

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME Docket No. 16-14-04

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the above referenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAARules ofPractice for Federally-Assisted Airport Enforcement Proceedings, 

### 14 CFR, Part 

### 16. Pursuant to 

### 14 CFR, Part 

### 16, subpart 

### B, the date by whichthe Final Agency Decision will be issued in this matter is hereby extended to on or about June 

### 15,2016. An extension oftime is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete determination 

### inthis case.



# OJ

**I~** 

# J2[)/j, 

## r Date 

## I for AirportsCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFYthat on2'01-114J'lt!{2o16, I caused to be placed inthe United States mail (first class mail, postage paid) a true copy ofthe Notice ofExtension ofTime, addressed to: FOR COMPLAINANT Richard 

### K. Simon, Esq. 1700 Decker School Lane Malibu, CA 90265 rsimon3@verizon.net FORRESPONDENT MarshaJones Moutrie Joseph Lawrence Lance S. Gams Ivan Campbell SantaMonica City Attorney's Office 1685 Main Street, Room 310 Santa Monica, CA 90401 G. Brian Busey Paul Varnado James Sigel Morrison & FoersterLLP 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20006 Zane 0. Gresham Morrison & FoersterLLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Copy to: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket FAA Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, AC0-100 

# ('Paufwflt;r;p

cl"audia Roberts Office ofAirport Compliance

and Management Analysis
Exhibit 32.01

                            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 GVC Venture Corp. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gordon Banks,
Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 that, to the best of my knowledge:

          (1)       The 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 report fairly presents, in
                    all material respects, the financial condition and results
                    of operations of the Company.

May 14, 2004

                                                  /s/ Gordon Banks
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Gordon Banks
                                                  President (Principal Executive
                                                  Officer) and Director


                                       15