alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### King On WONG, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 03-72438.

Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted April 12, 2005.

Decided Aug. 11, 2005.

Priscilla Wong, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

*638Gjon Juncaj, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Arthur L. Rabin, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Torts Branch, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before GOODWIN, O’SCANNLAIN, and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM*

King On Wong, a native and a citizen of China, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of asylum. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1105(a), as amended by the transitional rules in section 309(c)(4) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. *See Kalaw v. INS,*133 F.3d 1147, 1149-50 (9th Cir.1997). We review the BIA’s legal findings de novo. *See Ghaly v. INS,*58 F.3d 1425, 1429 (9th Cir.1995).

Wong contends that his current fear of persecution if returned to Hong Kong belies the BIA’s finding that he had been firmly resettled there, and thus was ineligible for asylum. We disagree. The BIA correctly held that Wong’s current fear of persecution is not relevant to a finding that he was previously firmly resettled in Hong Kong. The firm resettlement inquiry is concerned only with the alien’s situation *before*coming to the United States. *See 8*C.F.R. § 208.13(c)(2)(i)(B) (stating that an alien is barred from asylum if the alien *“[h]as been*firmly resettled ....”) (emphasis added); *see also Vang v. INS,*146 F.3d 1114, 1117 (9th Cir.1998) (holding that whether an alien currently has permanent resident status in a country is irrelevant to determining whether an alien was formerly a permanent resident and thus firmly resettled there).

Wong’s fear of persecution if returned to his country of resettlement is more properly addressed by a request for withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). However, Wong has waived any withholding of removal claim by failing to raise it on appeal.

Wong also argues that Hong Kong, which reverted to the suzerainty of mainland China in 1997, cannot be considered another country for the purposes of firm resettlement. Assuming *arguendo*that this argument has merit, we must still reject its relevance to Wong. He was firmly resettled in Hong Kong well before the 1984 date in which it was agreed that Hong Kong in its entirety would revert, to mainland China by 1997.

Pursuant to *Elian v. Ashcroft,*370 F.3d 897 (9th Cir.2004) (order), petitioner’s voluntary departure period will begin to run upon issuance of this court’s mandate.

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.
No. 61506.

#### Bruno Scheidt, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 307413-K (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of sprats in oil, packed in tins, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Arnold Sorensin Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 199, C. D. 1862), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7341
PAUL EDWARD SHORT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus LLOYD WATERS, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-97- 1021-MJG) Submitted: March 26, 1998 Decided: April 7, 1998 Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paul Edward Short, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Celia Anderson Davis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court'sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Short v. Waters , No. CA-97-1021-MJG (D. Md. Sept. 4, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
No. 63817.

protest 58/20588-10142 (Chicago).

#### Fred Adler Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

An examination of the official papers showing that the protest was filed more than 60 days after liquidation, the protest was dismissed as untimely, by virtue of section 514, Tariff Act of 1930.
Exhibit 10.47


 






Amendment to Option Agreement


 


This Option Agreement Amendment (“Amendment”) is entered into by and between MagicJack VocalTec Ltd., a company formed under the laws of Israel (“Company”) and Kristin Beischel (“Executive”) as of July 27, 2017, for the purpose of amending that certain Stock Option Agreement by and between the Company and Executive with a grant date of May 8, 2017 (the “Option Agreement”) issued pursuant to the Company’s Amended and Restated 2013 Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”).


 


RECITALS:


 



		A.	
The Option Agreement was entered into on May 8, 2017 pursuant to resolutions of the Compensation Committee and Board of Directors of the Company of even date;













		B.	
The resolutions of the Committee and the Board provided that the Option Agreement was subject to the approval by the Company’s shareholders of amendments to Plan, including an amendment to increase the number of shares available for issuance under the Plan;













		C.	
Section 5 of the Option Agreement mistakenly provides that the Option Agreement is also subject to approval of the Company’s shareholders; and













		D.	
The Company and Executive wish to amend the Option Agreement to remove the mistaken reference to the Agreement being subject to shareholder approval.







 


In consideration of the foregoing, the mutual obligations of the Company and the Executive under the Option Agreement, and other good and valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Company and the Executive agree to amend the Option Agreement as follows:


 


Section 5 of the Option Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced with the following:


 


5. Stockholder Approval. Optionee acknowledges that the Plan requires stockholder approval at the next annual or special meeting of stockholders following adoption and approval by the Board. If the adoption of the Plan is not approved by the Company’s stockholders within one (1) year following the Date of Grant, this Agreement shall be cancelled and void ab initio immediately following such next annual or special meeting of stockholders.


 


Other than as modified by this Amendment, the Option Agreement remains unchanged.


 


MAGICJACK VOCALTEC LTD.


 






	
By:

	/s/ Don Carlos Bell III		/s/ Kristin Beischel	 
	 	
Don Carlos Bell III

	 	
Kristin Beischel

	 
	 	
Chief Executive Officer
From: floh@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44Oboma must go! we do not need a dictator.We are supposed to be america, not

germaney

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:59:57 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

FLOSSIE Howard

Tacoma, WA 98443
No. 67502.

#### Air Express International and Good Time Jazz Record Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 59/34265, etc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of recording tapes similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Electric & Musical Industries (US), Ltd.*v. *United States*(42 Cust. Ct. 87, C.D. 2070), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 15 Filed 08/14/03 Page 1 of 12
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 15 Filed 08/14/03 Page 2 of 12
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 15 Filed 08/14/03 Page 3 of 12
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 15 Filed 08/14/03 Page 4 of 12
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 15 Filed 08/14/03 Page 5 of 12
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 15 Filed 08/14/03 Page 6 of 12
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 15 Filed 08/14/03 Page 7 of 12
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 15 Filed 08/14/03 Page 8 of 12
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 15 Filed 08/14/03 Page 9 of 12
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 15 Filed 08/14/03 Page 10 of 12
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 15 Filed 08/14/03 Page 11 of 12
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 15 Filed 08/14/03 Page 12 of 12
Zimbra Page 1 of2 

Zimbra rmaguire@norwoodma.gov 

Statement of consolidated finances for BEH under the minimum standards 

From : chris@bostonexecutivehelicopters.com 

Subject: Statement of consolidated finances for BEH 

under the minimum standards 

Tue, Apr 08, 2014 06:54PM 

To :Maguire Russ <rmaguire@norwoodma.gov> 

Russ, 

As our specific financials are confidential in nature I will certify the following to you, 

The Town of Norwood and the Airport Commission with regard to our FBO 

expansion under the Minimum Standards at Norwood Airport: 

Boston Executive Helicopters Financial position: 

Current Assets: 

Aircraft 7,000,000 

Equipment and supplies 200,000 

Hanger 2,000,000 

Total assets 9,200,000 

Liabilities: 

0 

We are an established business who has operated at Norwood Airport for 

approximately 4 years and debt free. 

Should you need additional information please let me know. 

With regards, 

Christopher 

https:/ /ncs.norwoodma.gov /h/printmessage?id=3 8972&tz= America/New_ York 4/25/2015 
Zimbra 

Christopher R. Donovan 

President 

Boston Executive Helicopters 

781-603-6186 

www. Bostonexecutivehel icopters.com 

Page 2 of2 

Boston executive Helicopters will match any legitimate estimate when the estimate 

is in a Turbine powered helicopter in an executive configuration. We want your 

business. All quotes are subject to change based on known or unknown conditions. 

All flights are subject to cancellation for weather, maintenance or Temporary Flight 

Restrictions (TFR) which may be in effect with short notice. Experience the Boston 

Executive Helicopters difference today.AII flights conducted in VFR weather 

conditions. All flight times, departure times and arrival times can vary due to WX, 

ATC and/or other factors beyond our control. The Pilot in command is the ultimate 

authority regarding all flight operations, routes, etc. All flights must be paid in 

advance unless credit terms are arranged & approved by Boston Executive 

helicopters. BEH assumes no responsibility for consequential damages caused by 

delays. 

https://ncs.norwoodma.gov/h/printmessage?id=38972&tz=America/New _York 4/25/2015
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 30679 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
ELIZABETH MARGARET CHILDS, also known as Elizabeth Childs, also known as Christina Margaret Childs, also known as Elizabeth Kaufman, also known as Stephanie White, also known as Christin e Elizabeth Finn, also known as Christine Childs Finn, also known as Elizabeth Margaret Kaufman, also known as Christine Finn, also known as Beth Childs, also known as Margaret Chiles, also known as Liz Chiles, also known as Nicole Childs , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:05

- CR

- 20016

- 1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Elizabeth Margaret Childs pleaded guilty to bank fraud and was sentenced to 24 months of imprisonment and 60 months of supervised release. Childs pleaded true to violating numerous conditions of her supervised release

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 7, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-30679 Document: 00512621544 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/07/2014No. 13

- 30679

and now appeals the 36

- month prison s entence she received after her supervised release was revoked. First , Childs argues that the district court gave inadequate reasons for its sentence. Because Childs objected only generally to the reasonableness of her sentence, review of the procedural r easonableness of her sentence is for plain error. See United States v. Kippers , 685 F.3d 491, 497 (5th Cir. 2012) (citing United States v. Whitelaw , 580 F.3d 256, 259 (5th Cir. 2009) (explaining that plain error review applie s on appeal where defendant fa iled to raise any of the specific claims of procedural error before the district court) ) . Given that the district court was presented with and considered many reasons for a sentence outside the guidelines policy statement range and these reasons addressed the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, Childs fails to show that under plain error review her sentence was not procedurally reasonable. See Puckett v. United States , 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009); Kippers , 685 F.3d at 497

- 99. To the extent Childs argues that the district court erred in failing to give her notice of its intent to upwardly depart from the guidelines policy statement range, such notice is not required in revocation proceedings. See United States v. Santirosa , 94 F. App’x 231, 231

- 32 (5th C ir. 2004) ; F ED

. R. C RIM

. P. 32.1. Finally, to the extent Childs suggests that her 36

- month sentence is substantively unreasonable, she has not shown that the district court abused its discretion given that she had absconded for years and committed addition al crimes during that period. See Kippers , 685 F.3d at 500

- 01. AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 13-30679 Document: 00512621544 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/07/2014
No. 63799.

protest 59/16535 (New York).

#### Lux Scientific Instrument Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with rule 5(b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Certification Pursuant to**

**18 U.S.C. §1350,**

**As Adopted Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of InfoTech USA, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the six months ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jonathan F. McKeage, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | /s/ Jonathan F. McKeage                                    |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Jonathan F. McKeage, President and Chief Executive Officer |
|   |                                                       |
|   | Date:  May 15, 2006                              |
Order entered January 26, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00940-CV

FIVE STAR GLOBAL, LLC, ET AL., Appellants

V.

MARK HULME, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-20-08643

ORDER

Before the Court is appellees’ January 22, 2021 unopposed motion for an 

extension of time to file their brief on the merits. We GRANT the motion and 

extend the time to February 16, 2021.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 245 (Friday, December 20, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 77111]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-30298]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Biological and Environmental Research Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Office of Science, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of renewal.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 14(a)(2)(A) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act, (Pub. L. 92-463), and in accordance with Title 41, Code 
of Federal Regulations, Section 102-3.65(a), and following consultation 
with the Committee Management Secretariat, General Services 
Administration, notice is hereby given that the Biological and 
Environmental Research Advisory Committee will be renewed for a two-
year period, beginning December 13, 2013.
    The Committee provides advice and recommendations to the Director, 
Office of Science on the biological and environmental research 
programs.
    Additionally, the renewal of the BERAC has been determined to be 
essential to conduct business of the Department of Energy and to be in 
the public interest in connection with the performance of duties 
imposed upon the Department of Energy, by law and agreement. The 
Committee will continue to operate in accordance with the provisions of 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act, adhering to the rules and 
regulations issued in implementation of that Act.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. David Thomassen, Designated 
Federal Officer, at (301) 903-9817.

    Issued in Washington, DC on December 13, 2013.
Carol A. Matthews,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2013-30298 Filed 12-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```
From: SuttonPhilip@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:24:34 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives," some of which may cause an abortion, and sterilization procedures be

covered by private health insurance with no co-pay to patients. e I also ask you to expand conscience

protections for any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or

religious objections.

I also ask you to offer an authentic conscience protection for any organization and business that has

moral or religious objection to providing such insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly

violates the spirit of conscience laws which prohibit government discrimination against those who object

to various health services on moral or religious grounds.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services. especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No American should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to.

Sincerely,

Philip Sutton

South Bend, IN 46617
\



## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 23

- 00167

- CR

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS

, Appellant

V

.

E LIJAH J OEL R OBINSON §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from Criminal District Court

No. 2

of Tarrant County ( 1710742 )

May 23, 2024

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was error in the trial court ’ s order . It is ordered that the trial court ’ s Order gra nting

the Motion to Suppress is reversed, and this case is remanded to the trial court for

further proceedings consistent with this opinion

.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Brian Walker

Justice Brian Walker