alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Violeta I. GARCIA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent. Felipe Santiago Cortegana, Petitioner, v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General, Respondent.

Nos. 02-71630, 02-71631.

Agency Nos. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted March 11, 2004.

Decided March 18, 2004.

Joren Lyons, Angela M. Bean & Associates, San Francisco, CA, Jennifer Light-body, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Margaret Perry, Arthur L. Rabin, Jennifer Lightbody, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before FERNANDEZ, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Felipe Cortegana and Violeta Garcia petition for review from the denial of their application for asylum and withholding of removal. We deny the petition for review. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case we need not recount it here.

The immigration judge’s decision was supported by substantial evidence. The harm suffered by Cortegana was not sufficient to constitute persecution within the meaning of immigration law. The threats were unspecific, and there was no further action indicating that whatever harm was threatened would occur. Because Corte-gana did not suffer past persecution, he is not entitled to a presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution under 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1). Cortegana did not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. The-threats to him and his family stopped completely once he quit his job as an ambulance driver. *See Castillo v. INS,*951 F.2d 1117, 1122 (9th Cir.1991).

Petitioners’ due process challenge to the summary affirmance by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(a)(7) is foreclosed by *Falcon Car-riche v. Ashcroft,*350 F.3d 845, 852 (9th Cir.2003). Petitioners’ regulatory challenge to the BIA’s decision to streamline their case fails because the result of the IJ’s decision was correct, there were no errors in the decision that were not harmless, and the issues presented on appeal to the Board were squarely controlled by existing precedent and did not involve the application of precedent to a novel fact situation. Therefore, the BIA did not violate the streamlining regulations in this case. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(a)(7.)

Petitioners also request us to hold that they still qualify for voluntary departure because *Zazueta-Carillo v. INS,*322 F.3d 1166, 1171 (9th Cir.2003) does not apply to them. However, because petitioners have not exhausted their administrative remedies on the claim, it is not yet ripe for our *270consideration. *See Ortiz v. INS,*179 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir.1999).

PETITION FOR REVIEW 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.
090000648112935e.xlsx

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

A B C D

Name Title Affiliation Phone Number

Ballo, Timothy Associate Attorney Earthjustice (202) 667-4500

Beck, Scott Product Engineering Manager Lakeview Metals (847) 838-9800

Petersen, Eric

Director of Customer Services & 

Research AK Steel (513) 425-5000

Fernstrom, Gary Senior Project Manager PG&E (510) 530-1789 

DeLaski, Andrew Executive Director ASAP (617) 363-9470

Roy, Robin Director NRDC (212) 727-2700

Nadel, Steve Executive Director ACEEE (202) 507-4011

Robles, Eduardo Eaton

Greeson, Robert Sr. Electrical Design Engineer Federal Pacific (276) 645-8210

Tendulkar, Vijay ONYX Power

Kennedy, Chad Schneider

Caskey, John

Assistant Vice President of Industry 

Operations NEMA (703) 841-3233

Millure, David Sr. Vice President Metglas (843) 349-7380

Cymbalsky, John

Supervisory Operations Research 

Analyst DOE 202-287-1692

Stoering, Mark VP of Business Development Xcel Energy; ERAC (612) 215-4570

Page 1 of 4
090000648112935e.xlsx

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

A

Name

Ballo, Timothy

Beck, Scott

Petersen, Eric

Fernstrom, Gary

DeLaski, Andrew

Roy, Robin

Nadel, Steve

Robles, Eduardo

Greeson, Robert

Tendulkar, Vijay

Kennedy, Chad

Caskey, John

Millure, David

Cymbalsky, John

Stoering, Mark

E

Email

tballo@earthjustice.org

ScottB@LVMetals.com

Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com

gbf1@pge.com

adelaski@standardsASAP.org

rroy@nrdc.org

snadel@aceee.org

rgreeson@federalpacific.com

john.caskey@nema.org

dave.millure@metglas.com

john.cymbalsky@ee.doe.gov

mark.e.stoering@xcelenergy.com

Page 2 of 4
090000648112935e.xlsx

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

A

Name

Ballo, Timothy

Beck, Scott

Petersen, Eric

Fernstrom, Gary

DeLaski, Andrew

Roy, Robin

Nadel, Steve

Robles, Eduardo

Greeson, Robert

Tendulkar, Vijay

Kennedy, Chad

Caskey, John

Millure, David

Cymbalsky, John

Stoering, Mark

F G H I J

Alternates Alternates (2)

Looby, Kevin Lakeview Metals

Waltner Meg NRDC

Ryan, Paul

Hitachi Metals 

America paul.ryan@hitmet.com Berman, Robert

Berman 

Economics

Cohen, Dan Asst Gen Counsel Daniel.Cohen@hq.doe.gov

Page 3 of 4
090000648112935e.xlsx

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

A

Name

Ballo, Timothy

Beck, Scott

Petersen, Eric

Fernstrom, Gary

DeLaski, Andrew

Roy, Robin

Nadel, Steve

Robles, Eduardo

Greeson, Robert

Tendulkar, Vijay

Kennedy, Chad

Caskey, John

Millure, David

Cymbalsky, John

Stoering, Mark

K

BermanEconomics@

gmail.com

Page 4 of 4
From: "King, Heidi R." <Heidi_R._King@omb.eop.gov>

To: Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Deirdre Murphy/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Karen Martin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 01/18/2011 11:46 AM

Subject: Summary of Interagency Working Comments during EO12866 Review of EPA's draft CO NAAQS NPRM

Please find attached a summary of interagency working comments and questions submitted during EO 

12866 review of EPA’s draft Carbon Monoxide NAAQS NPRM.

Thank you,

Heidi 

OMB/OIRA
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 898/2005

of 15 June 2005         

amending Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 concerning certain restrictive measures in respect of Zimbabwe

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 of 19 February 2004 concerning certain restrictive measures in respect of Zimbabwe (1), and in particular Article 11 (b) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 is hereby replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 15 June 2005.

For the Commission

Eneko LANDÁBURU            

Director-General of External Relations

----

(1)OJ L 55, 24.2.2004, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/2004 (OJ L 273, 21.8.2004, p. 12).

(2)  See page 37 of this Official Journal.

(3)OJ L 50, 20.2.2004, p. 66.

----

ANNEX

                     ‘ANNEX III

List of persons referred to in Article 6

----
§ 73.1515 Special field test authorizations. ( a ) A special field test authorization may be issued to conduct field strength surveys to aid in the selection of suitable sites for broadcast transmission facilities, determine coverage areas, or to study other factors influencing broadcast signal propagation. The applicant for the authorization must be qualified to hold a license under section 303(1)(l) of the Communications Act.
( b ) Requests for authorizations to operate a transmitter under a Special field test authorization must be in writing using an informal application in letter form, signed by the applicant and including the following information: ( 1 ) Purpose, duration and need for the survey.
( 2 ) Frequency, transmitter output powers and time of operation.
( 3 ) A brief description of the test antenna system, its estimated effective radiated field and height above ground or average terrain, and the geographic coordinates of its proposed location(s).
( c ) Operation under a special field test authorization is subject to the following conditions: ( 1 ) No objectionable interference will result to the operation of other authorized radio services; in this connection, the power requested shall not exceed that necessary for the purposes of the test.
( 2 ) The carriers will be unmodulated except for the transmission of a test-pattern on a visual TV transmitter, and for hourly voice station identification on aural AM, FM and TV transmitters.
( 3 ) The transmitter output power or antenna input power may not exceed those specified in the test authorization and the operating power must be maintained at a constant value for each phase of the tests.
( 4 ) The input power to the final amplifier stage, and the AM antenna current or the FM or TV transmitter output power must be observed and recorded at half hour intervals and at any time that the power is adjusted or changed. Copies of these records must be submitted to the FCC with the required report.
( 5 ) The test equipment may not be permanently installed, unless such installation has been separately authorized. Mobile units are not deemed permanent installations.
( 6 ) Test transmitters must be operated by or under the immediate direction of an operator holding a commercial radio operator license (any class, unless otherwise endorsed).
( 7 ) A report, containing the measurements, their analysis and other results of the survey shall be filed with the FCC in Washington, DC within sixty (60) days following the termination of the test authorization.
( 8 ) The test transmission equipment, installation and operation thereof need not comply with the requirements of FCC rules and standards except as specified in this section if the equipment, installation and operation are consistent with good engineering principles and practices.
( d ) A special field test authorization may be modified or terminated by notification from the FCC if in its judgment such action will promote the public interest, convenience and necessity.
[44 FR 58734, Oct. 11, 1979, as amended at 46 FR 35463, July 8, 1981; 49 FR 4211, Feb. 3, 1984; 49 FR 20670, May 16, 1984]
#### FLEXMIR, INC., PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER, v. LINDEMAN & COMPANY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

See same case below: 14 *N. J. Super.*379.

*Messrs. Lum, Fairlie & Foster*and *Mr. Raymond W. Troy*for the petitioner.

*Mr. Louis K. Press, Mr. Morris M. Schnitzer*and *Mr. Daniel G. Kasen*for the respondent.

October 22,1951.

Granted.
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 168 (Wednesday, August 30, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 51628]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-7228]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Cancer Institute; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meting of the National 
Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, September 11, 2006, 5 p.m. to 
September 13, 2006, 5 p.m. Doubletree Hotel Bethesda, 8120 Wisconsin 
Ave., Bethesda, MD, 20814 which was published in the Federal Register 
on July 25, 2006, 71 FR 42099.
    The meeting notice is amended to reflect the change in hotel from 
the Doubletree Hotel, 8120 Wisconsin Ave., Bethesda, MD 20814 to the 
Clarion Hotel, 8400 Wisconsin Ave., Bethesda, MD 20814. The meeting is 
closed to the public.

    Dated: August 22, 2006.
Anna Snouffer,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 06-7228 Filed 8-29-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
[No. 3188.]

#### Robert Fossett *v.*The State.

Playing Cards in a Public Place.—Indictment, to charge the offense of playing cards in a public place, must allege the facts which constitute the place of playing a public place, unless the place be one specifically enumerated in the Penal Code. Livery stables are *not so*enumerated, and it does not suffice to aver that the livery stable was a public place, without alleging facts which constitute it such a place.

Appeal from the County Court of Bosque. Tried below before the Hon. E. G-. Childress, County Judge.

The conviction was for playing cards in a public place. A fine of ten dollars was the punishment imposed.

Ho brief for the appellant has reached the Eeporters.'

*J. H.*Burts, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.'

Willson, Judge.

The indictment upon which this conviction was had charges that the defendant played cards “in a certain livery stable, in the loft of said livery stable, then and there being a part of said livery stable, overhead and above the stalls of said stable, to-wit, in the town of -Meridian, and commonly known as Whitworth stable, or red stable, the said livery stable, and the said loft thereof, then and there being a public place.”

In *Jackson*v. *The State,*decided by us at the present term, we held a similar indictment insufficient because it failed to allege the facts which constituted the place of the playing a *public placej*the said place not being one of those specifically named in the statute. (Penal Code, Art. 409.) A “livery stable,” nor the loft thereof, not being named in the statute, it was essential that the indictment should have alleged the facts which constituted the same a public place. *(State*v. *Fuller,*31 Texas, 559; *Elsberry*v. *The State,*41 Texas, 158; *Jackson*v. *The State, ante,*p. 373.)

Defendant’s motion in arrest of judgment, because of the *376above stated defect in the indictment, should have been sustained.

Because the indictment is substantially defective, the judgment is reversed and the prosecution is dismissed.

*Reversed and dismissed.*

Opinion delivered June 4, 1884.
Exhibit  3(e)

                         CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF
                 RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF
                         CE SOFTWARE HOLDINGS, INC.

CE Software Holdings, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under and by 
virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, does hereby 
certify:

FIRST:  That Section 4.1 of Article 4 of the Restate Certificate of 
Incorporation of the Corporation shall be amended to read as follows:

"ARTICLE 4- CAPITAL STOCK

4.1 The aggregate number of shares the corporation has authority to issue 
shall be 7,000,000 shares of which 2,000,000 shares of the par value of $.10 
shall be designated as Common Stock, 3,000,000 shares of the par value of $.01 
shall be designated as Class B Common Stock and 2,000,000 of the par value of 
$.01 shall be designated as Preferred Stock.  All of the shares of Common Stock
of the corporation of the par value of $.02 issued and outstanding, or held as 
treasury shares, immediately prior to the time this amendment becomes effective 
shall be and are by this means automatically reclassified and changed (without 
any further act) into shares of the par value of $.10, the number of which shall
equal the quotient derived from dividing the number of such shares by 5.  This 
amendment shall become effective without increasing or decreasing the amount of 
stated capital or paid-in surplus of the corporation, and shall constitute a 1 
for 5 reverse stock split, provided that no fractional shares of less than one 
share shall be issued.  The holders of fractional share interests of less than 
one share that occur as a result of the foregoing reclassification and change 
shall be paid in money by the Corporation the value of their fractional shares."
 
SECOND:   That the aforesaid amendment was duly adopted by written consent in 
accordance with Section 228 of the General Corporation Law of the State of 
Delaware.

THIRD:  That written notice of the taking of such corporate action without a 
meeting by less than unanimous written consent was sent or given to all 
shareholders at lease 20 days prior to the effective date of the amendment.

FOURTH:  That the effective date of the aforesaid amendment shall be June 
30, 1997.

CE Software Holdings, Inc. has caused this Certificate to be signed on this 
27th day of June, 1997 by its Secretary and authorized officer, John S. Kirk, 
who acknowledges that his signature is the act and deed of the corporation and 
that the facts stated herein are true.  
              
                                          CE Software Holdings, Inc.

                                            By /s/ John S. Kirk
                                              _____________________
                                                   John S. Kirk


                                      22

<PAGE>
No. 11-132.

#### Sohal *v.*Darrell and Jane Smith Family Partnership et al.

Ct. App. Cal., 3d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 494 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 494

To provide that members of the Armed Forces performing services in the 
 relief effort in Somalia shall be entitled to certain tax benefits in 
  the same manner as if such services were performed in a combat zone.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 20, 1993

    Mr. Reynolds (for himself, Mr. McHugh, Mr. Wheat, Mr. Baker of 
  Louisiana, Mr. Owens, and Mr. Montgomery) introduced the following 
      bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide that members of the Armed Forces performing services in the 
 relief effort in Somalia shall be entitled to certain tax benefits in 
  the same manner as if such services were performed in a combat zone.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF INDIVIDUALS PERFORMING SERVICES IN OPERATION 
              RESTORE HOPE.

    (a) General Rule.--Any individual who performs Operation Restore 
Hope services shall be entitled to the benefits of the following 
provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in the same manner as 
if such services were performed in an area designated by the President 
of the United States by Executive order as a ``combat zone'' for 
purposes of section 112 of such Code:
            (1) Section 112 (relating to exclusion of combat pay).
            (2) Section 692 (relating to income taxes of members of 
        Armed Forces on death).
            (3) Section 2201 (relating to members of the Armed Forces 
        dying in combat zone or by reason of combat-zone incurred 
        wounds).
            (4) Section 7508 (relating to time for performing certain 
        acts postponed by reason of service in combat zone).
    (b) Operation Restore Hope Services.--For purposes of this section, 
the term ``Operation Restore Hope services'' means any services in the 
Armed Forces of the United States if--
            (1) such services are performed in the area designated by 
        the President pursuant to this paragraph as the ``Operation 
        Restore Hope area'', and
            (2) such services are performed during the period beginning 
        on December 3, 1992, and ending on the date designated by the 
        President by Executive order as the date on which substantial 
        involvement in relief efforts in Somalia by United States Armed 
        Forces has terminated.
For purposes of subsection (a)(4), services in support of the Armed 
Forces of the United States shall be treated in the same manner as 
services in such Armed Forces.
    (c) Effective Date.--The provisions of this subsection shall apply 
to periods beginning on or after December 3, 1992.

                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 10.23

                   EXECUTIVE OFFICER COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS
                              FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005


         The Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc. Compensation Committee set the 2007 fiscal
year base salaries and restricted stock unit grants for the executive officers.
In addition, the executive officers participate in our 401(k) plan and medical
and disability plans, as well as other compensatory plans, contracts and
arrangements which are filed as exhibits to our Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2006.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                      2007 Annual           2007 Restricted
Executive Officer and Title                           Base Salary           Stock Units*

<S>                                                            <C>                  <C>
Sally J. Smith                                                 $500,000             9,398
Chief Executive Officer and President


Mary J. Twinem                                                 $315,000             5,921
Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
     and Treasurer


James M. Schmidt                                               $235,000             4,417
Executive Vice President and
     General Counsel


Judith A. Shoulak                                              $255,000             3,835
Senior Vice President, Operations


Kathleen M. Benning                                            $224,000             3,368
Senior Vice President, Marketing and Brand
     Development


Emil Lee Sanders                                               $218,000             3,233
Senior Vice President, Development and Franchising


Craig W. Donoghue                                              $197,000             2,962
Senior Vice President, Information Systems


Linda G. Traylor                                               $225,000             3,383
Senior Vice President, Human Resources
</TABLE>


*These restricted stock units were granted as of January 1, 2007 and vest to the
extent of 33-1/3% on the last day of each fiscal year, and the risks of
forfeiture lapse as to such increment if the Company achieves 95% of the
earnings target established by the Board of Directors.




                                       65