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).

The Honorable James K. Singleton, Senior District Judge for the U.S. ***

District Court for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DAGVADORJ BAYARSAIHAN,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-74583

Agency No. A 098-132-076

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 12, 2013** 

San Francisco, California

Before: O’SCANNLAIN and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and SINGLETON,

Senior District Judge.*** 

Dagvadorj Bayarsaihan, a native and citizen of Mongolia, petitions for

review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing her appeal from an

FILED

JUN 21 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

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

removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We review to

determine whether the agency decision is supported by substantial evidence, Halim

v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 975 (9th Cir. 2009), and deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Bayarsaihan did not

suffer past persecution. Most incidents proffered in support involved her family

members in Mongolia and did not concomitantly threaten Bayarsaihan. See

Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1091–92 (9th Cir. 2010). In any event, even

viewing the alleged instances of unfulfilled threats and childhood beatings

cumulatively does not compel the conclusion that Bayarsaihan suffered past

persecution. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003).

In determining whether Bayarsaihan established a well-founded fear of

future persecution, we decline to address Bayarsaihan’s argument that she is a

member of a disfavored group because Bayarsaihan fails to demonstrate a

sufficient individualized risk of persecution even under a disfavored-group theory. 

See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 991–92 (9th Cir. 2010). Moreover, the

record supports the BIA’s conclusion that Bayarsaihan’s fear of future persecution

is too speculative to be objectively reasonable. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d

1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, Bayarsaihan’s asylum claim fails.
3

Because Bayarsaihan failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she

necessarily fails to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. 

See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006). Bayarsaihan also

fails to satisfy her burden for CAT protection because she has failed to show that it

is “more likely than not” that she would be tortured if she returns to Mongolia, or

that such torture would occur “at the instigation of or with the consent or

acquiescence of a public official.” 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)(2), 1208.18(a)(1).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
****
| **Secondary MarketReport** | **April 1998**
TABLE 9 UnsoldInventoryof New Homes Comparedto Previous Month (Percent of FieldOffices Reporting)**Apr'98          Apr'97                ------          ------Declining          20%              7%Stationary         78%             87%Advancing           2%              6%Total             100%            100%                Mar'98          Mar'97                ------          ------Declining          21%             11%Stationary         74%             88%Advancing           5%              1%Total             100%            100%                Feb'98          Feb'97                ------          ------Declining          15%              4%Stationary         80%             87%Advancing           5%              9%Total             100%            100%           Percentage Point Difference                Feb'98-        Feb'97-                Apr'98         Apr'97                ------        --------Declining           5%              3%Stationary         -2%              0%Advancing          -3%             -3%Data as of: April 1, 1998              HFEP: 4-01-98***HSG/FHA Home Page | Reports Menu | Email Us***** |
|----------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION TO EXTEND TIME

Appellate case name: Roy Castillo v. The State of Texas

Appellate case numbers: 01-19-00485-CR

Trial court case number: 1577118

Trial court: 351st District Court of Harris County

Appellant Roy Castillo has filed a motion to extend time to file a motion for 

rehearing of the Court’s memorandum opinion and judgment affirming appellant’s 

conviction for the offense of escaping from custody while charged with a felony offense. 

“A motion for rehearing may be filed within 15 days after the court of appeals’ judgment 

or order is rendered.” TEX. R. APP. P. 49.1. This deadline may be extended if a motion to 

extend time is filed “no later than 15 days after the last date for filing the motion” for 

rehearing. TEX. R. APP. P. 49.8. The Court’s judgment in this appeal issued on June 15, 

2021. Thus, the deadline to file a motion for rehearing was June 30, 2021, and the deadline 

to file a motion to extend time was July 15, 2021. TEX. R. APP. P. 49.1, 49.8. Appellant did 

not file a motion for rehearing, but he filed a motion to extend time on July 30, 2021. 

Because appellant filed the motion to extend time after July 15, 2021, the motion was not 

timely. Accordingly, the Court denies appellant’s motion to extend time as untimely.

It is so ORDERED.

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

  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: August 24, 2021
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11


                        DEP CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
                      CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF
                          COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE LOSS
                      (in thousands, except per share data)
                                   (UNAUDITED)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                          Three Months Ended         Nine Months Ended
                                               April 30,                 April 30,
                                          1997         1996         1997         1996
                                        -----------------------     ---------------------
<S>                                     <C>           <C>           <C>           <C>     
Net loss ..........................     ($   613)     ($   979)     ($ 2,612)     ($3,169)
                                        ========      ========      ========      =======

Shares:
Weighted average shares outstanding        6,876         6,251         6,644        6,250
                                        ========      ========      ========      =======

Loss per share ....................     ($  0.09)     ($  0.16)     ($  0.39)     ($ 0.51)
                                        ========      ========      ========      =======
</TABLE>
U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-2369
**Geologic Map of the Vail West Quadrangle, Eagle County, Colorado**
*By* Robert B. Scott, David J. Lidke, *and* Daniel J. Grunwald
Version 1.0

This report is presented in Portable Document Format. The latest version of Adobe Acrobat Reader or similar software is required to view it. If you wish to download the latest version of Acrobat Reader free of charge, click here.

Map PDF file (4.7 MB)
Pamphlet PDF file (450 KB)(This version of the report is accessible as defined in Section 508.)
 Readme TEXT file (19 KB) Metadata TEXT file (22 KB)
**Download GIS archive files:** ZIPPED archive of ArcInfo files (1.6 MB) TARRED and GZIPPED archive of ArcInfo files (1.6MB) ZIPPED archive of base map (463 KB) TARRED and GZIPPED archive of base map (454KB)

AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and Notices
U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological Survey      URL: https://pubsdata.usgs.gov/pubs/mf/2002/mf-2369/Questions or Assistance: USGS Web ContactPage Last Modified: Thr Dec  1 12:08 EDT 2016
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPublic Schedule...Public Schedule – October 30, 2021

# 									Public Schedule – October 30, 2021							

Public Schedule

Office of the Spokesperson

October 30, 2021

*********THE DAILY PUBLIC SCHEDULE IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE*****

**SECRETARY ANTONY J. BLINKEN**

Secretary Blinken accompanies President Biden on travel to Vatican City, Rome, and Glasgow, from October 28-November 2, 2021. Please click here for more information.

Secretary Blinken follows President Biden’s schedule.

**11:40 a.m. LOCAL** Secretary Blinken meets with Italian Foreign Minister Luigi Di Maio, in Rome, Italy.

**(CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)**

**6:00 p.m. LOCAL** Secretary Blinken meets with Indian External Affairs Minister Dr. Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, in Rome, Italy.

**(POOLED CAMERA SPRAY AT TOP)**

Tags

Office of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of State

Back to Top
explained br tha mat Uut Um qeaS,al dirtrl.& &dgo la not 

cleated to*serw a8 $udgo SOP the diatrloti but OJlrp to ps?orlde 

8 oub8tltuts for the regular judge to at a .talluro of th, 

tern of aourt in a 

Iand * cattle CO.& r 

tlaular aouuty, p” Wynn v* R. X. Xdao~on 

Cio. App.) 150 9. W. 310) and the Lesgirlaturn did not aon8ldm t&t txmelbg ap8nmr woe&l be hourr8d 

by him In..trweling from the county of ~08Meaae to other aauntie8 in the dbtriot to bold oourt. Uhther that bo the rouoo 

rm. the fultmt to provide 

er not, houww, it i.8 a 

expeMa8 to point out 

8Uy or b8dvrrtent~, 

YF88iQr V. Dundg,cO.,
§ 52h.9 What matters must be reviewed for unsolicited contract proposals? ( a ) Except as otherwise provided by law, no awarding official shall award a contract based upon an unsolicited contract proposal covered by this part unless the proposal has been reviewed by a peer review group in accordance with the provisions of this part and the group has made recommendations concerning the scientific merit of that proposal.
( b ) Except to the extent otherwise provided by law, peer review group recommendations are advisory only and not binding on the awarding official.
§ 488.1240 Suspension of payment for all new patient admissions. ( a ) *Application.* ( 1 ) CMS may suspend payment for all new admissions to a hospice program on or after the date on which the Secretary determines that remedies should be imposed.
( 2 ) CMS considers the remedy in paragraph (a)(1) of this section for any deficiency related to poor patient care outcomes, regardless of whether the deficiency poses immediate jeopardy.
( b ) *Procedures* — ( 1 ) *Notice of intent.* ( i ) Before suspending payments for all new admissions, CMS provides the hospice program notice of the suspension of payment in accordance with § 488.1210(e).
( ii ) The hospice program may not charge a newly admitted hospice patient who is a Medicare beneficiary for services for which Medicare payment is suspended unless the hospice program can show that, before initiating care, it gave the patient or his or her representative oral and written notice of the suspension of Medicare payment in a language and manner that the beneficiary or representative can understand.
( 2 ) *Restriction.* ( i ) The suspension of payment for all new admissions remedy may be imposed anytime a hospice program is found to be out of substantial compliance with the conditions of participation.
( ii ) The suspension of payment for all new admissions remains in place until CMS determines that the hospice program has achieved substantial compliance with the conditions of participation or is terminated, as determined by CMS.
( 3 ) *Resumption of payments.* Payments for all new admissions to the hospice program resume prospectively on the date that CMS determines that the hospice program has achieved substantial compliance with the conditions of participation.
( c ) *Duration and effect of remedy.* The remedy in paragraph (a) of this section ends when any of the following occur— ( 1 ) CMS determines that the hospice program has achieved substantial compliance with all of the conditions of participation.
( 2 ) When the hospice program is terminated or CMS determines that the hospice program is not in compliance with the conditions of participation at a maximum of 6 months from the date of the survey identifying the noncompliance.
#### § 57.317 Additional conditions.

The Secretary may, with respect to any agreement entered into with any school under § 57.305, impose additional conditions prior to or at the time of any award when in his or her judgment the conditions are necessary to assure or protect advancement of the purposes of the agreement, the interest of the public health, or the conservation of funds awarded.
Exhibit 32

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

The undersigned have executed this certification in connection with the filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Companys Quarterly Report
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2005. The undersigned hereby
certifies that:

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

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





May 16, 2005                             /s/Raul S. McQuivey
Date        	                       ____________________________
						     Raul S. McQuviey
                                         Principal Executive Officer




May 16, 2005                             /s/Sidney C. Hooper
Date                                     ____________________________
						     Sidney C. Hooper
                                         Chief Financial Officer
OSWER/OSRTI 

Washington, DC 20460 

NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST (NPL) 

***Final Site*** September 2011 

ALAMOCONTAMINATED Alamo, Tennessee 

GROUNDWATER Crockett County 

 Site Location: 

The Alamo Contaminated Ground Water site consists of a plume of contaminated ground water beneath the City of 

Alamo, Tennessee. The full extent of the ground water plume has not been determined. 

 Site History: 

In 1988, solvent contamination was discovered in two of the four municipal production wells which supply the city of 

Alamo with drinking water. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) detected included tetrachloroethene (PCE) and 

trichloroethene (TCE) above EPA’s Safe Drinking Water Act Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs). Subsequent 

investigations conducted by both the state and EPA have discovered multiple potential sources of VOC contamination 

in the area. One potential source, Volunteer Circuits, manufactured printed circuit boards for the electronics industry 

from 1973-1975. Additional suspected sources of contamination include newspaper printing and dry cleaners. 

 Site Contamination/Contaminants: 

VOCs, including TCE, PCE, dichloroethene and 1,1,1 trichloroethane have been detected in ground water in several 

monitoring wells and the city’s municipal wells. 

 Potential Impacts on Surrounding Community/Environment: 

All of the potential sources have not been identified and the size of the contaminated ground water plume is unknown. 

Other private wells and county utility district wells are located within a mile of the known plume area. The 

contaminated aquifer is the Memphis Sands Aquifer, which is considered a sole source aquifer for this area of 

Tennessee. Unless the contaminated plume is addressed, the City of Alamo will have to continually treat its well water 

prior to distribution to the public. 

 Response Activities (to date): 

Several investigations have been conducted by EPA and the state. The City of Alamo continues to treat water from the 

city wells by air stripping prior to distribution. 

 Need for NPL Listing: 

The State of Tennessee referred the site to EPA because contaminated ground water has contaminated the municipal 

drinking water wells of the City of Alamo, and because the extent of ground water contamination has not been fully 

delineated. Other federal and state cleanup programs were evaluated, but are not viable at this time. EPA received a 

letter from the state supporting listing of the site on the NPL. 

[The description of the site (release) is based on information available at the time the site was evaluated with the HRS. The description may 

change as additional information is gathered on the sources and extent of contamination.] 

For more information about the hazardous substances identified in this narrative summary, including general information regarding the effects of exposure to 

these substances on human health, please see the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) ToxFAQs. ATSDR ToxFAQs can be found on 

the Internet at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaq.html or by telephone at 1-888-42-ATSDR or 1-888-422-8737.
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

#### §§ 11.12-11.13 [Reserved]
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Notes:

1. In Patent and Trademark Office publications and usage the part number is omitted from the numbers of §§ 1.1 to 1.352 and the numbers to the right of the decimal point correspond with the respective rule numbers.

2. For nomenclature changes to part 1, see 68 FR 14335, Mar. 25, 2003; 87 FR 68904, Nov. 17, 2022.

#### § 1.424 Assignee, obligated assignee, or person having sufficient proprietary interest as applicant in an international application.

(a) A person to whom the inventor has assigned or is under an obligation to assign the invention may be an applicant in an international application which designates the United States of America. A person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter may be an applicant in an international application which designates the United States of America on proof of the pertinent facts and a showing that such action is appropriate to preserve the rights of the parties.

(b) Neither any showing required under paragraph (a) of this section nor documentary evidence of ownership or proprietary interest will be required or considered by the Office in the international stage, but will be required in the national stage in accordance with the conditions and requirements of § 1.46.

[77 FR 48823, Aug. 14, 2012]

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.
Editorial Note on Part 84
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 84 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

§ 84.251 Required components. ( a ) Each vinyl chloride respirator described in § 84.250 shall, where its design requires, contain the following component parts: ( 1 ) Facepiece;
( 2 ) Canister with end-of-service-life indicator;
( 3 ) Cartridge with end-of-service-life indicator;
( 4 ) Harness;
( 5 ) Attached blower; and
( 6 ) Breathing tube.
( b ) The components of each vinyl chloride respirator shall meet the minimum construction requirements set forth in Subpart G of this part.
§ 390.2 Amount of assessments. ( a ) *2023 Annual Assessment.* The Annual Assessment for the calendar year 2023 shall be in the amount of $32,900,000.
( b ) *2024 Annual Assessment.* The Annual Assessment for the calendar year 2024 shall be in the amount of $39,050,000.
( c ) *Other Annual Assessments.* ( 1 ) For the calendar year 2025 and all subsequent years, the amount of the Annual Assessment will be automatically adjusted by increasing the amount of the Annual Assessment of the preceding calendar year by the lesser of: ( i ) 3 percent; and
( ii ) The percentage change in the ECI.
( 2 ) The MLC shall publish notice on its website of each year's automatic adjustment to the Annual Assessment. The Annual Assessment shall continue from year to year unless and until the Copyright Royalty Judges cause to be published an adjusted administrative assessment pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(7)(D)(iv) or (v).
[85 FR 832, Jan. 8, 2020, as amended at 88 FR 69039, Oct. 5, 2023]