alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1213.8 Significant guidance. ( a ) *Good faith cost estimates.* Even though not legally binding on the public, some agency guidance may result in a substantial economic impact on the public. For example, the guidance's existence may induce private parties to alter their conduct to conform to recommended standards or practices, thereby incurring costs beyond the costs of complying with existing statutes, regulations, and other authorities. While it may be difficult to predict with precision the economic impact of voluntary guidance on the public, we, to the extent practicable, make a good faith effort to estimate the likely economic cost impact on the public, to determine whether the document might be significant.
( b ) *Regulatory impact analyses.* When we, or OIRA, determine that a guidance document will have an economically significant impact on the public, we conduct and publish a regulatory impact analysis of the sort that would accompany an economically significant rulemaking, to the extent reasonably possible.
( c ) *Excluded guidance.* Significant guidance documents do not include the categories of documents excluded by § 1213.1(b) or any other category of guidance documents the regulatory office exempts in writing in consultation with OIRA.
( d ) *OIRA review of significant guidance.* If OIRA designates a guidance document as significant or economically significant, we submit it to OIRA for review under E.O. 12866 before we issue it, as with regulations; and we process significant guidance in compliance with the applicable requirements for regulations or rules, including significant regulatory actions.
( e ) *Signature or approval.* The Archivist of the United States or a senior executive designee signs or approves significant guidance.
( f ) *Informal notice-and-comment procedures.* Except as outlined in paragraph (g) of this section, we subject all proposed guidance documents OIRA determines to be significant to the following informal notice-and-comment procedures. We publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing that a draft of the proposed guidance document is publicly available and where, either post the draft guidance document on our guidance portal or on *regulations.gov* in a docket with the notice (depending on the nature, size, and scope of the guidance), invite public comment on the draft document for a minimum of 30 days, and prepare and post a public response to major concerns raised in the comments, as appropriate, on our guidance portal or in the docket on *regulations.gov* (whichever location we used to post the draft guidance), either before or when we issue the guidance document.
( g ) *Exceptions to notice-and-comment procedures.* The requirements of paragraph (f) of this section do not apply to any significant guidance document or categories of significant guidance documents for which we find, in consultation with OIRA, good cause that notice and public comments are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest (and we will incorporate the finding of good cause and a brief statement of reasons in the guidance).
[85 FR 31979, May 28, 2020, as amended at 87 FR 21024, Apr. 11, 2022]
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TIRSA ELIZABETH CORTEZ

CORVERA, Petitioner,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 22

- 1733 Agency No. A208

- 287

- 204

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 12, 2023 **
Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges

. Tirsa Elizabeth Cortez

- Corvera , a native and citizen of El Salvador , petitions

pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her applications for asylum,

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

SEP 26 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 22

- 1733

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr , 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for review.
Substanti al evidence supports the agency’s determination that Cortez

Corvera failed to establish she was or would be persecuted on account of a protected ground. See Ayala v. Holder , 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if membership in a particular social gr oup is established, an applicant must still
show that “ persecution was or will be on account of his membership in such

group ” ) ; Zetino v. Holder , 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Thus, Cortez

Corvera’s asylum claim fails. Because Cortez

- Corvera failed to establish any nexus at all, she also failed to satisfy the standard for withholding of removal

. See Barajas

- Romero v. Lynch , 846 F.3d 351, 359

- 60 (9th Cir. 2017). In light of this disposition, we need not reach Cortez

- Corvera’s contentions regarding the cognizability of her proposed particular social group

. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft , 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach).3 22

- 1733

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Cortez

- Corvera failed to show it is more likely than no t she will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El
Salvador

. See Aden v. Holder , 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVI EW DENIED.
§ 1211.300 Admission. ( a ) *General.* No person shall, on the basis of sex, be denied admission, or be subjected to discrimination in admission, by any recipient to which §§ 1211.300 through §§ 1211.310 apply, except as provided in § 1211.225 and § 1211.230.
( b ) *Specific prohibitions.* ( 1 ) In determining whether a person satisfies any policy or criterion for admission, or in making any offer of admission, a recipient to which §§ 1211.300 through 1211.310 apply shall not: ( i ) Give preference to one person over another on the basis of sex, by ranking applicants separately on such basis, or otherwise;
( ii ) Apply numerical limitations upon the number or proportion of persons of either sex who may be admitted; or
( iii ) Otherwise treat one individual differently from another on the basis of sex.
( 2 ) A recipient shall not administer or operate any test or other criterion for admission that has a disproportionately adverse effect on persons on the basis of sex unless the use of such test or criterion is shown to predict validly success in the education program or activity in question and alternative tests or criteria that do not have such a disproportionately adverse effect are shown to be unavailable.
( c ) *Prohibitions relating to marital or parental status.* In determining whether a person satisfies any policy or criterion for admission, or in making any offer of admission, a recipient to which §§ 1211.300 through 1211.310 apply: ( 1 ) Shall not apply any rule concerning the actual or potential parental, family, or marital status of a student or applicant that treats persons differently on the basis of sex;
( 2 ) Shall not discriminate against or exclude any person on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, termination of pregnancy, or recovery therefrom, or establish or follow any rule or practice that so discriminates or excludes;
( 3 ) Subject to § 1211.235(d), shall treat disabilities related to pregnancy, childbirth, termination of pregnancy, or recovery therefrom in the same manner and under the same policies as any other temporary disability or physical condition; and
( 4 ) Shall not make pre-admission inquiry as to the marital status of an applicant for admission, including whether such applicant is “Miss” or “Mrs.” A recipient may make pre-admission inquiry as to the sex of an applicant for admission, but only if such inquiry is made equally of such applicants of both sexes and if the results of such inquiry are not used in connection with discrimination prohibited by these Title IX regulations.
§ 1236.10 What records management controls must agencies establish for records in electronic information systems? The following types of records management controls are needed to ensure that Federal records in electronic information systems can provide adequate and proper documentation of agency business for as long as the information is needed. Agencies must incorporate controls into the electronic information system or integrate them into a recordkeeping system that is external to the information system itself (see § 1236.20 of this part). ( a ) *Reliability:* Controls to ensure a full and accurate representation of the transactions, activities or facts to which they attest and can be depended upon in the course of subsequent transactions or activities.
( b ) *Authenticity:* Controls to protect against unauthorized addition, deletion, alteration, use, and concealment.
( c ) *Integrity:* Controls, such as audit trails, to ensure records are complete and unaltered.
( d ) *Usability:* Mechanisms to ensure records can be located, retrieved, presented, and interpreted.
( e ) *Content:* Mechanisms to preserve the information contained within the record itself that was produced by the creator of the record;
( f ) *Context:* Mechanisms to implement cross-references to related records that show the organizational, functional, and operational circumstances about the record, which will vary depending upon the business, legal, and regulatory requirements of the business activity; and
( g ) Structure: controls to ensure the maintenance of the physical and logical format of the records and the relationships between the data elements.
##### 



Exhibit 23.3 Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm The Board of Directors
Tejas Incorporated and subsidiaries: We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-117234) on Form
S-8 of Tejas Incorporated (formerly Westech Capital Corp.) of our report dated February 11, 2005,
with respect to the consolidated statements of operations, stockholders equity, and cash flows of
Tejas Incorporated and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2004, which report appears in
the December 31, 2004, annual report on Form 10-K of Tejas Incorporated. /s/ Helin, Donovan, Trubee & Wilkinson, LLP Austin, Texas
March 31, 2005
Exhibit 10.10


 


TENTH AMENDMENT TO SENIOR SECURED CONVERTIBLE
PROMISSORY NOTE


 


This Tenth Amendment to Senior Secured Promissory
Note by and among GI DYNAMICS, INC., a Delaware corporation (the “Payor”), and CRYSTAL
AMBER FUND LIMITED (the “Holder”) is effective as of June 29, 2020. Capitalized terms used but
not defined herein have the definitions ascribed thereto in that certain Senior Secured Convertible Promissory Note issued on June
15, 2017 by the Payor to the Holder, as amended on December 31, 2018, March 29, 2019, April 30, 2019, June 30, 2019, August 21,
2019, March 31, 2020, May 1, 2020, May 15, 2020 and June 15, 2020 (as so amended, the “Existing Note”).


 


WHEREAS, the Payor and the Holder desire
to further amend the terms of the Existing Note as set forth herein; and


 


WHEREAS, Section 10(f) of the Existing Note
provides that any term of the Existing Note may be amended or waived only with the written consent of the Payor and the Holder.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the
foregoing premises and for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Payor
and the Holder, intending to be legally bound, agree as follows:


 


1. Maturity Date Extension.
Sections l(b), 2(a), 2(b) and 2(c) of the Existing Note are hereby amended with immediate effect to change the dates referred to
in each such section (including, for the avoidance of doubt, the Maturity Date) from “June 29, 2020” to “July
31, 2020”.


 


2. No Other Changes. Except as specifically
amended in this amendment, all other terms of the Existing Note shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.


 


3. Counterparts. This amendment may
be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which taken together shall constitute
one and the same instrument. Facsimile or PDF transmission of execution copies or signature pages for this amendment shall be legal,
valid and binding execution and delivery for all purposes.


 


4. Governing Law. This amendment
shall be governed by, and construed and enforced in accordance with, the substantive laws of the State of New York, without regard
to its principles of conflicts of laws.


 


[Signature Pages Immediately Follow]


 









    


     


    

 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned
party has executed this amendment as of the date first written above.


 


PAYOR:


 


	GI DYNAMICS, INC.	 
	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ Scott Schorer	 
	Name:	Scott Schorer	 
	Title:	Chief Executive Officer	 


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned
party has executed this amendment as of the date first written above.


 


HOLDER:


 


CRYSTAL AMBER FUND LIMITED


 


By: Crystal Amber Asset Management (Guernsey) Limited,
as

Investment Manager


 


	By:	/s/ Laurence McNairn	 
	Name:	Laurence McNairn	 
	Title:	Director	 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


(Signature Page to
Tenth Amendment to Senior Secured Convertible Promissory Note)
[No. 1348.]

#### The People ex rel. Rollins v. The Board of County Commissioner of Rio Grande County.

Opinion Followed.

This ease is reversed on the same grounds as stated in the opinion in the case of *The People ex rel. Reynolds v. The Board of County Commissioners of Rio Grande County, ante,*p. 124.

*Rrror to the District Court of Rio Grande County.*

Messrs. Patterson, Richardson & Hawkins, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Ira J. Bloomfield, Mr. C. M. Corlett, and Mr. Jesse Stephenson, for defendants in error.

Thomson, P. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The facts in this case are the same with those in *People ex rel. Reynolds v. Rio Grande*County, ante, p. 124, except that the judgment against the county was recovered by Sam M. Janney, and by him transferred to Rollins, the relator here ; and except that one of the warrants issued upon the judgment, amounting to 1105.34, was paid. In all other respects *139the two eases are alike. The amount paid should he credited on the judgment, and a peremptory mandamus awarded for the levy of a tax to pay the residue, in accordance with our instructions to the district court in the opinion delivered in the *Reynolds*case; and the judgment in this case is reversed and remandedfor further proceedings in conformity with those instructions.

*Reversed.*

Wilson, J., not sitting.
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 193 (Thursday, October 5, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 58806]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-8533]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Notice of Sunshine Act Meeting

Agency Holding the Meeting: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Time and Date: 10:30 a.m., Wednesday, October 25, 2006.

Place: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Conference Room.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered: Rule Enforcement Review.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eileen A. Donovan, 202-418-5100.

Eileen A. Donovan,
Acting Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 06-8533 Filed 10-3-06; 11:13 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
#### § 95.3379 76-81 GHz Band Radar Service unwanted emissions limits.

(a) The power density of any emissions outside the 76-81 GHz band shall consist solely of spurious emissions and shall not exceed the following:

(1) Radiated emissions below 40 GHz shall not exceed the field strength as shown in the following emissions table.

| Frequency (MHz) | Field strength (microvolts/meter) | Measurement distance (meters) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 0.009-0.490 | 2400/F(kHz) | 300 |
| 0.490-1.705 | 24000/F(kHz) | 30 |
| 1.705-30.0 | 30 | 30 |
| 30-88 | 100 | 3 |
| 88-216 | 150 | 3 |
| 216-960 | 200 | 3 |
| Above 960 | 500 | 3 |

(i) In the emissions table in [paragraph (a)(1)](/on/2024-09-20/title-47/section-95.3379#p-95.3379(a)(1)) of this section, the tighter limit applies at the band edges.

(ii) The limits in the table in [paragraph (a)(1)](/on/2024-09-20/title-47/section-95.3379#p-95.3379(a)(1)) of this section are based on the frequency of the unwanted emissions and not the fundamental frequency. However, the level of any unwanted emissions shall not exceed the level of the fundamental frequency.

(iii) The emissions limits shown in the table in [paragraph (a)(1)](/on/2024-09-20/title-47/section-95.3379#p-95.3379(a)(1)) of this section are based on measurements employing a CISPR quasi-peak detector except for the frequency bands 9.0-90.0 kHz, 110.0-490.0 kHz, and above 1000 MHz. Radiated emissions limits in these three bands are based on measurements employing an average detector with a 1 MHz RBW.

(2) The power density of radiated emissions outside the 76-81 GHz band above 40.0 GHz shall not exceed the following, based on measurements employing an average detector with a 1 MHz RBW:

(i) For radiated emissions outside the 76-81 GHz band between 40 GHz and 200 GHz from field disturbance sensors and radar systems operating in the 76-81 GHz band: 600 pW/cm2 at a distance of 3 meters from the exterior surface of the radiating structure.

(ii) For radiated emissions above 200 GHz from field disturbance sensors and radar systems operating in the 76-81 GHz band: 1000 pW/cm2 at a distance of 3 meters from the exterior surface of the radiating structure.

(3) For field disturbance sensors and radar systems operating in the 76-81 GHz band, the spectrum shall be investigated up to 231.0 GHz.

(b) Fundamental emissions must be contained within the frequency bands specified in this section during all conditions of operation. Equipment is presumed to operate over the temperature range −20 to +50 degrees Celsius with an input voltage variation of 85% to 115% of rated input voltage, unless justification is presented to demonstrate otherwise.
§ 1010.11 Preparation of an EA. ( a ) *When to prepare.* The Trust will begin the preparation of an EA (or require it to be begun) as early as possible after it is determined by the NEPA Compliance Coordinator to be required. The Trust will provide notice of such determinations in accordance with § 1010.12. The Trust may prepare or require an EA at any time to assist planning and decision-making.
( b ) *Content and format.* An EA is a concise public document used to determine whether to prepare an EIS. An EA should address impacts, including cumulative impacts, on those resources that are specifically relevant to the particular proposal. Those impacts should be addressed in as much detail as is necessary to allow an analysis of the alternatives and the proposal. The EA shall contain brief discussions of the following topics: ( 1 ) Purpose and need for the proposed action.
( 2 ) Description of the proposed action.
( 3 ) Alternatives considered, including a No Action alternative.
( 4 ) Environmental effects of the proposed action and the alternatives, including mitigation measures.
( 5 ) Listing of agencies, organizations, and/or persons consulted.
( c ) *Finding of no significant impact (FONSI).* If an EA is completed and the NEPA Compliance Coordinator determines that an EIS is not required, then the NEPA Compliance Coordinator shall prepare a finding of no significant impact. The finding of no significant impact shall be made available to the public by the Trust as specified in 40 CFR 1506.6.
( d ) *Mitigated FONSI.* If an EA is completed and the NEPA Compliance Coordinator determines that an EIS is required, then prior to preparation of an EIS, the proposal may be revised in order to mitigate the impacts identified in the EA through adherence to legal requirements, inclusion of mitigation as an integral part of the proposal, and/or fundamental changes to the proposal. A supplemental EA will be prepared on the revised proposal and will result in a Mitigated Finding of No Significant Impact, preparation of an EIS, or additional revision of the proposal and a supplemental EA.
§ 1222.22 What records are required to provide for adequate documentation of agency business? To meet their obligation for adequate and proper documentation, agencies must prescribe the creation and maintenance of records that: ( a ) Document the persons, places, things, or matters dealt with by the agency.
( b ) Facilitate action by agency officials and their successors in office.
( c ) Make possible a proper scrutiny by the Congress or other duly authorized agencies of the Government.
( d ) Protect the financial, legal, and other rights of the Government and of persons directly affected by the Government's actions.
( e ) Document the formulation and execution of basic policies and decisions and the taking of necessary actions, including all substantive decisions and commitments reached orally (person-to-person, by telecommunications, or in conference) or electronically.
( f ) Document important board, committee, or staff meetings.
§ 1121.7 Agency review of request for correction or amendment of the record. Within ten working days of the receipt of the request to correct or to amend the record, the Administrative Officer will acknowledge in writing such receipt and promptly either— ( a ) Make any correction or amendment of any portion thereof which the individual believes is not accurate, relevant, timely, or complete; or
( b ) Inform the individual or authorized representative of his or her refusal to correct or to amend the record in accordance with the request, the reason for the refusal and the procedures established by the Board for the individual to request a review of that refusal.
Exhibit 99.3

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Biophan Technologies, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended May 31, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Robert J. Wood, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the
best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and result of operations
     of the Company.


/s/Robert J. Wood
-------------------
Robert J. Wood
Chief Financial Officer
July 15, 2003