alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Angelica Maria MARTINEZ-MENDEZ, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 02-72838.

Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Feb. 11, 2004.

Decided Feb. 20, 2004.

Jonathan M. Kaufman, Law Offices of Alan M. Kaufman, San Francisco, CA, Angelica Maria Martinez-Mendez, pro se, Salinas, CA, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Thankful T. Vanderstar, David Dauenheimer, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before RYMER, HAWKINS, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Angelica Martinez-Mendez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the summary affirmance by the Board of Immigration Appeals of the denial of her application for asylum and withholding of deportation under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a) and 1253(h). As this is a streamlined case, we review the decision of the immigration judge (IJ). 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(a)(7). We deny the petition.

We review the IJ’s decision to see if there is substantial evidence to support it. *INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 483-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). This court can reverse the IJ’s factual findings only if “a reasonable factfinder would be compelled to find the petitioner eligible for the relief sought.” *Gomez-Saballos v. INS,*79 F.3d 912, 914 (9th Cir.1996).

Martinez-Mendez argues that the IJ erred by requiring her to present corroborative evidence of her father’s past military service. Although the IJ’s oral decision mentions that corroboration was available from Martinez-Mendez’s father that would have explained the connection between his being in the military and what *976happened to his family in Guatemala, the IJ’s determination did not turn on the absence of corroboration but on the fact that Martinez-Mendez’s *testimony*did not show that she suffered past persecution or is at risk of persecution in the future on account of imputed political opinion. *Cf. Kataria v. INS,*232 F.3d 1107, 1112 (9th Cir.2000) (overturning BIA’s conclusion that the alien failed to meet his burden of establishing eligibility for asylum or entitlement to withholding of removal because he failed to provide corroboration). Even assuming that Martinez-Mendez testified credibly, the evidence does not compel a different conclusion because it does not show that the guerillas targeted Martinez-Mendez or imputed anything about her father’s military service to her. *See Sangha v. INS,*103 F.3d 1482, 1489-90 (9th Cir.1997) (explaining that an applicant must demonstrate that persecutors actually imputed a political opinion to her and persecuted her on account of that opinion).

As Martinez-Mendez failed to meet the less-stringent standard for asylum, necessarily she fails to meet the stricter standard for withholding of deportation. *See, e.g., Mejia-Paiz v. INS,*111 F.3d 720, 725 (9th Cir.1997).

PETITION DENIED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of *this*circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"2018-1433: AC Technologies S.A. v. Amazon.com, Inc. - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"bn2RaALl6t\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/11-07-2018-2018-1433-ac-technologies-sa-v-amazoncom-inc-audio-uploaded\/\">2018-1433: AC Technologies S.A. v. Amazon.com, Inc.<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/11-07-2018-2018-1433-ac-technologies-sa-v-amazoncom-inc-audio-uploaded\/embed\/#?secret=bn2RaALl6t\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“2018-1433: AC Technologies S.A. v. Amazon.com, Inc.” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"bn2RaALl6t\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Oral argument audio posted: AC Technologies S.A. v. Amazon.com, Inc. (mp3) Appeal Number: 2018-1433 To listen to more oral argument recordings, follow this link: Listen To Oral Arguments."}
BUCKLEY DODDS
================================================================================




                                NOTICE TO READER

We have compiled the consolidated balance sheet of Topclick International,  Inc.
as at September 30, 1999 and the consolidated statements of operations,  deficit
and cash flows for the three  months  then ended from  information  provided  by
management.  We have not audited,  reviewed or otherwise attempted to verify the
accurancy or completeness of such information.  Readers are cautioned that these
statements may not be appropiate for their puproses.


                                                        /s/ BUCKLEY DODDS
Vancouver, B.C.                                         Chartered Accountants
November 4, 1999
exv10w8



 





Exhibit 10.8









February 14, 2005




David Choi

Chief Financial Officer

MetroBank, N.A.




David:




The bank is pleased to provide you with the following agreement:



We do not anticipate your having to use the following separation package plan, but, we will pay you
18 months of your base pay should the bank be acquired and the new owners seek to replace you or
diminish your employment status, i.e. pay, responsibilities, etc., or should the new management
decide to remove you for reasons other than for failed performance, cause, resignation, disability,
death or moral turpitude. If the separation package is used, then all offered stock options and/or
restricted shares may be exercised during whichever of the following timeframes is longer: the
period between the day of notification of separation and the day you receive the separation pay
package, or within two weeks of receiving a separation notification.



We value your past and present contributions and look to the future for you continued efforts and
dedication to MetroBank, N.A.



Sincerely,




/s/ George Lee




George Lee

Chief Executive Officer

MetroBank, N.A.
Exhibit 31.1
                            SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

     I, Randall Peterson, certify that:

     1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Softwall
Equipment Corporation.;

     2.  Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual
report.

     3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

     4.  I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls
and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
registrant and have:

     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
     information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
     subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
     particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being
     prepared.

     b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
     procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
     annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

     c) Presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
     effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
     evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

     5.  I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

     a) All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
     controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
     process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
     registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

     b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
     employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
     controls; and

     6.  I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were
significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could
significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent
evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: August 18, 2004          /S/ Randall Peterson
                               ----------------------------------------------
                               Randall Peterson, Chief Executive Officer
                               and President
**Exhibit 4.7**

**AMENDMENT NO. 1 TOSTOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT**

This Amendment No. 1 (the “Amendment”)to Stock Purchase Agreement is made as of February 8, 2007 by and betweenBiovail Laboratories International SRL, an International Society withRestricted Liability under the laws of Barbados (“Purchaser”), andDepomed, Inc., a California corporation (the “Company”).

**BACKGROUND**

A.                                   Purchaser (as the successor in interest toBiovail Laboratories Incorporated) and the Company are parties to that certain StockPurchase Agreement, dated as of May 28, 2002 (the “Agreement”).  Capitalized terms used here withoutdefinition have the meanings given to them in the Agreement.

B.                                     Purchaser and the Company desire to amend theAgreement as set forth herein.

Accordingly,for good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is herebyacknowledged, the parties agree as follows:

# 1.               Amendments.

## 1.1                                 Article 3.  Section 3.01(a), Section3.01(c), Section 3.01(d), Section 3.02, Section and Section 3.03 are herebydeleted.

## 1.2                                 Section 6.01.     Section 6.01 is hereby deleted.

# 2.               Miscellaneous.

## 2.1                                 Full Force and Effect. Except as expressly amended hereby, the Agreement will continue in fullforce and effect in accordance with the provisions thereof on the date hereof.

## 2.2                                 Counterparts.  ThisAmendment may be signed in one or more counterparts, all of which will beconsidered one and the same instrument.

[signature page follows]

----

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Purchaserand the Company have caused this Amendment to be duly executed as of the day andyear first above written.
| DEPOMED, INC.: | BIOVAIL LABORATORIES     |
|----------------|--------------------------|
|           |                     | INTERNATIONAL SRL: |
|           |                     |   |   |
|           |                     |   |   |
| By:            | /s/ Matthew M. Gosling   |   | By: | /s/ Michel Chouinard |
| Name:          | Matthew M. Gosling       |   | Name: | Michel Chouinard |
| Title:         | VP & General Counsel |   | Title: | Chief Operating Officer |
|                |                          |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

 

2

----
September 18, 2015

Mr. Nicholas Macray Fuller

Above All Video LLC

219B West Atlantic Boulevard

Atlantic Beach, NC 28512

Dear Mr. Fuller :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from

§ § 61.113(a) and (b), 91.7(a), 91.119, 91.121, 91.151(a), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1),

91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regul ations

(14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the

next 30 days.

Why We Can No t Process Your Request

We received your April 25, 2015, exemption request on behalf of Above All Video LLC filed

in D ocket No

. FAA− 20 15

− 1548 , but we are unable to process your request any further. Your

petition does no t comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider

the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html . This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements outlines in § 11.81 and helps an swer any

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption

at least 120 d ays before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267

- 2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure3
No. 10-10850.

#### Fierro *v.*Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
EXHIBIT 32.2

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


Pursuant to 10 U.S.C.  Section  1350 as adopted  pursuant to Section 1350 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002,  in  connection  with  the  Quarterly  Report  of
Electronic Game Card, Inc. on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending  September 30,
2005, as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report") for Electronic Game Card, Inc., (the "Company"),  the undersigned
hereby certifies that:

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

(2)      to the best of my knowledge,  the  information  contained in the Report
         fairly presents, in all material respects,  the financial condition and
         result of operations of the Company.

March 7, 2006


/S/ LINDEN J. BOYNE
---------------------------
    LINDEN J. BOYNE
    CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
No. 11-9648.

#### Caylor *v.*Florida.

Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Agriculture

###### Forest Service

# AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to the authorities in the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463) and under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-393) the Lolo and Kootenai National Forests' Sanders County Resource Advisory Committee will meet on August 10 at 7 p.m. in Thompson Falls, Montana for a business meeting. The meeting is open to the public.

# DATES:

August 10, 2006.

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at the Thompson Falls Courthouse, 1111 Main Street, Thompson Falls, MT 59873.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Randy Hojem, Designated Federal Official (DFO), District Ranger, Plains Ranger District, Lolo National Forest at (406) 826-3821.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Agenda topics include voting on new RAC project proposals and receiving public comment. If the meeting location is changed, notice will be posted in the local newspapers, including the Clark Fork Valley Press, and Sanders County Ledger.

Dated: July 28, 2006.

Randy Hojem,

DFO, Plains Ranger District, Lolo National Forest.

[FR Doc. 06-6749 Filed 8-7-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
§ 54.321 Reporting and certification requirements for Alaska Plan participants. Any competitive eligible telecommunications carrier authorized to receive Alaska Plan support pursuant to § 54.317 shall provide: ( a ) No later than 60 days after the end of each participating carrier's first five-year term of support, a certification that it has met the obligations contained in the performance plan approved by the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, including any obligations pursuant to a revised approved performance plan and that it has met the requisite public interest obligations contained in the Alaska Plan Order. For Alaska Plan participants receiving more than $5 million annually in support, this certification shall be accompanied by data received or used from drive tests analyzing network coverage for mobile service covering the population for which support was received and showing mobile transmissions to and from the carrier's network meeting or exceeding the minimum expected download and upload speeds delineated in the approved performance plan.
( b ) No later than 60 days after the end of each participating carrier's second five-year term of support, a certification that it has met the obligations contained in the performance plan approved by the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, including any obligations pursuant to a revised approved performance plan, and that it has met the requisite public interest obligations contained in the Alaska Plan Order. For Alaska Plan participants receiving more than $5 million annually in support, this certification shall be accompanied by data received or used from drive tests analyzing network coverage for mobile service covering the population for which support was received and showing mobile transmissions to and from the carrier's network meeting or exceeding the minimum expected download and upload speeds delineated in the approved performance plan.
[81 FR 69716, Oct. 7, 2016]
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

MARSHA DEBORAH GURALNICK,

Appellant,

v.

ALLEN PAUL GURALNICK,

Appellee.

No. 4D22-1980

[April 20, 2023]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Linda Alley, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE91-018106.

Howard S. Friedman and Lisa K. Bennett of Fischler & Friedman, P.A., 

Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Scott J. Brook of Scott J. Brook, P.A., Coral Springs, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

MAY, CIKLIN and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### Horace Williams, *Plaintiff in Error,*vs. State of Florida, *Defendant in Error.*

143 So. 300.

Division A.

Decision filed August 2, 1932.

*310
      *Sam Russ,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*Cary D. Landis,*Attorney General, and *Roy Campbell,*Assistant, for the State.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said judgment; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said judgment of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Buford, C.J., and Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur.

Whitfield, P.J., and Terrell and Davis, J.-J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.39


AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO
CITRIX SYSTEMS, INC.
2015 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN


OCTOBER 27, 2016




Pursuant to Section 21 of Citrix Systems, Inc. 2015 Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the “Plan”), the Plan is hereby amended as follows:


The first sentence of Section 3 is hereby replaced in its entirety with the following:


The payment periods during which contributions will be accumulated under the Plan shall consist of periods ranging from three months to twenty-four months, as determined by the Committee from time to time (each, a “Payment Period” and collectively, the “Payment Periods”).  


This Amendment No. 2 shall be effective upon the date hereof. 


Except as expressly amended hereby, the Plan remains in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.


Adopted by the Board of Directors of Citrix Systems, Inc.:  October 27 2016.
No. 11-8850.

#### Robinson *v.*Bayer Healthcare, LLC.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.