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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALBERT FROILAN GASMEN

GAERLAN; ALMA FE FABICULANAN

GAERLAN; ILICH YEAGER CALICA

GAERLAN; SEJI KYRA CALICA

GAERLAN; CAYI KRIEL CALICA

GAERLAN; JURIS KARREL CALICA

GAERLAN, 

Petitioners,

 v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 17-73311

Agency Nos. A087-860-465

A087-860-466

A087-860-467

A087-860-468

A087-860-469

A087-860-470

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 29, 2020** 

Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

FILED

JUL 31 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* 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).
Lead petitioner, Albert Froilan Gaerlan, and his family, natives and citizens

of the Philippines, seek review of a 2017 Board of Immigration Appeals’

(“BIA”)order dismissing an appeal from an order of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) 

denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection

under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We deny the petition.

1. The adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial

evidence. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). In his written

statement and testimony, Gaerlan claimed that the Director of the National Bureau

of Investigation (“NBI”), General Reynaldo Wycoco, ordered him to cease an

ongoing investigation into rice hoarding in June and September 2007. Yet the

Government submitted into evidence a newspaper article showing that General

Wycoco had died on December 19, 2005, more than eighteen months before the

events in question, and another individual became Director of the NBI in 2006.

Gaerlan declined to continue the hearing so that he could challenge the authenticity

of the Government’s evidence.

In the absence of credible testimony from Gaerlan, the IJ and BIA

permissibly denied his claims for asylum and withholding of removal. Because no

evidence apart from his testimony supported the claim for CAT protection, that

claim also fails.

2
2. “[A]n asylum application is frivolous if any of its material elements is

deliberately fabricated.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.20. An element is deliberately fabricated

if it involves a “knowing and intentional misrepresentation of the truth.” Matter of

Y-L-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 151, 156 (BIA 2007). The BIA properly affirmed the IJ’s

determination that Gaerlan filed a frivolous asylum application. As discussed

above, Gaerlan was found to have submitted false documentary and testimonial

evidence. Only after being confronted with the Government’s contradictory

evidence did he admit the inaccuracies in his original story.

PETITION DENIED.

3
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 102 

Expressing the sense of Congress that ensuring the availability of adequate 

housing is an essential component of an effective strategy for the prevention and treatment of HIV and the care of individuals with HIV. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 24 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 17), 2008 

Mrs. CLINTON submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of Congress that ensuring the availability of adequate housing is an essential component 

of an effective strategy for the prevention and treatment 

of HIV and the care of individuals with HIV. 

Whereas adequate and secure housing is recognized as a 

human right in Article 25 of the Universal Declaration 

of Human Rights, adopted by the General Assembly of 

the United Nations on December 10, 1948; 

Whereas strong and consistent research findings show that 

the socioeconomic status of individuals and groups is a 

key determinant of health; 

Whereas the link between poverty and an increased risk of 

contracting HIV and other poor health outcomes is well 

established; 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

•SCON 102 IS 

Whereas research findings demonstrate that there is a direct 

relationship between inadequate housing and a greater 

risk of HIV infection, poor health outcomes, and early 

death; 

Whereas poor living conditions, including overcrowding and 

homelessness, undermine safety, privacy, and efforts to 

promote self-respect, human dignity, and responsible sexual behavior; 

Whereas, according to the National AIDS Housing Coalition, 

individuals who are homeless or unstably housed are 2 to 

6 times more likely to use hard drugs, share needles, or 

exchange sex than individuals with stable housing, as the 

lack of stable housing directly impacts the ability of individuals living in poverty to reduce HIV risk behaviors; 

Whereas, despite the evidence indicating that adequate housing has a direct positive effect on the prevention and 

treatment of HIV and health outcomes, the lack of resources dedicated to providing adequate housing has been 

largely ignored in policy discussions at the international 

level; and 

Whereas the United Nations, in the 2006 Political Declaration on HIV/AIDS, embraced the goal of universal access 

to comprehensive prevention programs and treatment, 

care, and support for individuals with HIV by 2010: 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that ensuring 

3 the availability of adequate housing is an essential compoVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:42 Sep 25, 2008 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\SC102.IS SC102

erowe on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
3 

•SCON 102 IS 

1 nent of an effective strategy for the prevention and treat2 ment of HIV and the care of individuals with HIV. 

Æ 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
(76 South. 409)

#### PUTNAM v. STATE.

(7 Div. 468.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

June 12, 1917.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Cleburne County; Hugh D. Merrill, Judge.

Mans Putnam was convicted of the offense of using abusive language, and appeals.

Affirmed.

S. W. Tate, of Anniston, for appellant. W. L. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.

BRIOKEN, J.

The defendant was indicted, tried, and convicted for the offense of abusive language. _ The questions raised on this appeal are identical with the questions raised in the companion case against the same defendant. Mans Putnam v. State, ante, p. 171, 76 South. 408, present term. Under the authority of that case, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999             SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          47,150                  16,057
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,936                   2,042
<ALLOWANCES>                                       127                      60
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   546                     604
<PP&E>                                           1,507                     632
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,329                      28
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  62,915                  20,284
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,144                   4,113
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                  28,422
<COMMON>                                           101                      15
<OTHER-SE>                                      54,548               (122,667)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    62,915                  20,284
<SALES>                                         13,159                   3,585
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,159                   3,585
<CGS>                                         (12,325)                 (3,494)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 (12,325)                 (3,494)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (15,897)                 (5,072)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,673                     104
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (13,390)                 (4,877)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        63                      87
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (13,453)                 (4,964)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.74)                  (3.53)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.74)                  (3.53)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF INTREPID CAPITAL CORPORATION AS OF MARCH
31, 2000 AND FOR THE THREE MONTHS THEN ENDED. THIS INFORMATION IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         940,772
<SECURITIES>                                   341,121
<RECEIVABLES>                                  187,999
<ALLOWANCES>                                    58,074
<INVENTORY>                                    113,368
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,860,852
<PP&E>                                         432,392
<DEPRECIATION>                                (143,808)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,370,985
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          860,959
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        22,155
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,571,204
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,370,985
<SALES>                                        225,187
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,110,008
<CGS>                                          115,151
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,466,914
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               101,123
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,860
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (356,906)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   134,304
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (222,602)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (222,602)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.10)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.2 Q2 FY2015






                    
SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT






This Sixteenth Amendment to Employment Agreement is made and entered into as of January 1, 2015 by and between PriceSmart, Inc., a Delaware Corporation ("Employer") and William Naylon ("Executive").




Recitals


		
	A)
	On January 16, 2002 an Employment Agreement ("Agreement") was made and entered into by and between Employer and Executive.




		
	B)
	Said Employment Agreement has been amended on fifteen prior occasions;




		
	C)
	Employer and Executive now desire to further amend the Agreement, as set forth hereinbelow:






Agreement


		
	1.
	Section 2.1 of the Agreement which provides:




		
	2.1 
	Salary.  For Executive's services hereunder, Employer shall pay as base salary to Executive the amount of $416,160 during each year of the Employment Term.  Said salary shall be payable in equal installments in conformity with Employer's normal payroll period. Executive shall receive such salary increases, if any, as Employer, in its sole discretion, shall determine.


 
is hereby amended, effective January 1, 2015, to provide as follows:


		
	1.
	Salary.  For Executive's services hereunder, Employer shall pay as base salary to Executive the amount of $428,645 during each year of the Employment Term.  Said salary shall be payable in equal installments in conformity with Employer's normal payroll period. Executive shall receive such salary increases, if any, as Employer, in its sole discretion, shall determine.






		
	2.
	Section 3.1 of the Agreement which provides: 




		
	3.1
	Term. The term of Executive’s employment hereunder shall commence on January 16, 2002 and shall continue until January 31, 2015 unless sooner terminated or extended as hereinafter provided.




is hereby amended, effective January 1, 2015, to provide as follows:


		
	1.
	Term.  The term of Executive’s employment hereunder shall commence on January 16, 2002 and shall continue until January 31, 2016 unless sooner terminated or extended as hereinafter provided.













		
	3.
	All other terms of the Agreement, as amended, shall remain unaltered and fully effective.








Executed in San Diego, California, as of the date first written above.








EXECUTIVE                        EMPLOYER
PriceSmart, INC.


William Naylon                     By: ______________________                


Name:     Jose Luis Laparte    
    
Its:     CEO and President
# Materials Not Included in Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

Docket Number: FAA
- 2015 - 3989 Directorate Identifier: 2014NM250AD

B/E AEROSPACE SB 117042
- 35 - 001, R003
--- 6/25/15 B/E AEROSPACE SB 117042
- 35 - 001, R002
--- 5/29/15 B/E AEROSPACE SB 117042
- 35 - 001, R001
--- 4/9/15 B/E AEROSPACE SB 117042
- 35 - 001 --- 12/10/14

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket



### MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 03/05/2008
[No. 49999-8-I.

Division One.

December 23, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. M.L., *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 01-8-04949-8, Dale B. Ramerman, J., entered January 2, 2002. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
<PAGE>

                                                              Exhibit 10(xx)



                                                              March 31, 2003


K-V Pharmaceutical Company
2503 South Hanley Road
St. Louis, MO 63144

Attention:  Mr. Marc S. Hermelin
            Vice Chairman of the Board
            and Chief Executive Officer

Dear Marc:

         I hereby offer to extend the Consulting Agreement dated May 1, 1999
and expiring on April 30, 2004 for an additional seven year term through
April 30, 2011.


                                            /s/ Victor M. Hermelin
                                            ------------------------------
                                            Victor M. Hermelin



                                            K-V Pharmaceutical Company

                                            By: /s/ Gerald R. Mitchell
                                                --------------------------
                                                Gerald R. Mitchell
                                                V-P, Treasurer and CFO
###### Editorial Note on Part 4

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 4 appear at 61 FR 19984, May 3, 1996.

#### § 4.153 Inapplicability of prevailing compensation provisions to some employees.

There may be employees used by a contractor or subcontractor in performing a service contract in excess of $2,500 which is subject to the Act, whose services, although necessary to the performance of the contract, are not subject to minimum monetary wage or fringe benefit provisions contained in the contract pursuant to section 2(a) because such employees are not directly engaged in performing the specified contract services. An example might be a laundry contractor's billing clerk performing billing work with respect to the items laundered. In all such situations, the employees who are necessary to the performance of the contract but not directly engaged in the performance of the specified contract services, are nevertheless subject to the minimum wage provision of section 2(b) (see § 4.150) requiring payment of not less than the minimum wage specified under section 6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act to all employees working on a covered contract, unless specifically exempt. However, in situations where minimum monetary wages and fringe benefits for a particular class or classes of service employees actually performing the services called for by the contract have not been specified in the contract because the wage and fringe benefit determination applicable to the contract has been made only for other classes of service employees who will perform the contract work, the employer will be required to pay the monetary wages and fringe benefits which may be specified for such classes of employees pursuant to the conformance procedures provided in § 4.6(b).
2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 9-15-2005 

# U SA v . F al lon P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-4184

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . F al lon" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 476. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/476P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 03- 4184 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. J AM E S C. F AL L ON,

A ppel l ant O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia D . C . C r i m i nal N o. 02- cr - 00324 (H on orabl e Jam es T . G i l es) Pr e s e n t : SCI RI CA , Chi e f J u d g e , SLOV I TER, ALI TO, RO TH, M c KEE, REN DELL, B A R R Y , A M B R O , F U E N T E S , S M IT H , F IS H E R , V A N A N T W E R P E N ,

and R O SE N N , C i r cui tJ udges O R D E R A m aj or i t yof the ac t i ve j udges havi ng vot ed forr ehea r i ng en banc i n t he above a ppeal , i ti s or der ed thatt he C l er k of thi s C our tl i s tt he above cas e forr ehea r i ng en banc at9: 30 a. m . on T ues day , N ovember 1, 2005. BY THE C OU RT, / s /A nt honyJ . Sci r i ca C hi ef J udge D A T E D : Sept ember 15, 2005 RLS / c c : RE DF
#### In the Matter of Manuel Rivera, Petitioner, v Donald Selsky, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.

[698 NYS2d 273]

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Correctional Services, dated September 11, 1997, made after a hearing, as amended November 20, 1997, which found the petitioner guilty of the charges asserted in a misbehavior report, including the refusal to obey a direct order and possession of a narcotic, and imposed a penalty.

Adjudged that the determination, as amended, is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contentions, the hearing testimony, along with the misbehavior report, constituted substantial evidence that was adequate to support the determination that the petitioner was guilty of the charges brought against him *(see, Matter of Abdur-Raheem v Mann,*85 NY2d 113, 117; *Matter of Bryant v Coughlin,*77 NY2d 642, 647; *Matter of Foster v Coughlin,*76 NY2d 964, 966; *People ex rel. Vega v Smith,*66 NY2d 130, 139; *Matter of Da Wen Yu v Selsky,*249 AD2d 474). Issues of credibility are within the province of the Hearing Officer as the trier of fact, and we find no reason to disturb the determination *(see, Matter of Oro v Keane,*211 AD2d 796).

We reject the petitioner’s claim that the chain of custody of the contraband seized from him was not fully established. Technical rules of evidence do not apply in prison disciplinary proceedings *(see, Matter of Price v Coughlin,*116 AD2d 898, 899). The determination need only be supported by substantial evidence. Generally, to annul a determination upon an alleged defect in the chain of custody, a petitioner must demonstrate that there was no evidence to substantiate the chain of custody *(see, Matter of Price v Coughlin, supra,*at 899). The petitioner has failed to meet that standard here.

*296The petitioner’s claim that the misbehavior report failed to comply with the appropriate rules and regulations is without merit, since he failed tó demonstrate any prejudice as a result of any of the purported errors *(see, Matter of Rivera v Keane,*225 AD2d 699; *Matter of Colucci v Scully,*173 AD2d 953, 954).

The petitioner’s claim that he was denied his right to an impartial hearing because the Hearing Officer made a predetermination of guilt before the conclusion of the hearing and the introduction of all the evidence, is not supported by the record *(cf., Matter of Hodges v Scully,*141 AD2d 729, 730).

The petitioner’s remaining contention is without merit. Friedmann, J. P., Florio, Schmidt and Smith, JJ., concur.