alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Angel APOLINAR-LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-71649, [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*598Submitted Aug. 1, 2005.*

Decided Aug. 4, 2005.

Michael J. Selph, Berke Law Offices, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.

CAC-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Jeffrey J. Bernstein, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before O’SCANNLAIN, CALLAHAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM**

Angel Apolinar-Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, *INS v. Doherty,*502 U.S. 314, 323-24, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA’s decision to deny ApolinarLopez’s motion to reopen was not “arbitrary, irrational or contrary to law.” *See Singh v. INS,*295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002) (citation omitted). The BIA acted within its broad discretion in concluding that the additional evidence Apolinar-Lopez presented with his motion to reopen was insufficient to establish eligibility for cancellation of removal. *See id.*

Apolinar-Lopez’s further contentions lack merit.

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.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 584 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 584

Supporting the goals and ideals of ``National Life Insurance Awareness 
                                Month''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 30, 2007

Mrs. Biggert (for herself, Mr. Kanjorski, Mr. Bachus, and Mr. Hinojosa) 
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 
                   on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Supporting the goals and ideals of ``National Life Insurance Awareness 
                                Month''.

Whereas life insurance is an essential part of a sound financial plan;
Whereas life insurance provides financial security for families by helping 
        surviving members meet immediate and long-term financial obligations and 
        objectives in the event of a premature death in their family;
Whereas approximately 68,000,000 United States citizens lack the adequate level 
        of life insurance coverage needed to ensure a secure financial future 
        for their loved ones;
Whereas life insurance products protect against the uncertainties of life by 
        enabling individuals and families to manage the financial risks of 
        premature death, disability, and long-term care;
Whereas individuals, families, and businesses can benefit from professional 
        insurance and financial planning advice, including an assessment of 
        their life insurance needs; and
Whereas numerous groups supporting life insurance have designated September 2007 
        as ``National Life Insurance Awareness Month'' as a means to encourage 
        consumers to--

    (1) become more aware of their life insurance needs;

    (2) seek professional advice regarding life insurance; and

    (3) take the actions necessary to achieve financial security for their 
loved ones: Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the goals and ideals of ``National Life 
        Insurance Awareness Month''; and
            (2) calls on the Federal Government, States, localities, 
        schools, nonprofit organizations, businesses, and the citizens 
        of the United States to observe the month with appropriate 
        programs and activities.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 4.3


 


 


Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We have issued our
report dated March 28, 2018, with respect to the financial statement of Smart Trust 373 contained in Amendment No. 1 to the Registration
Statement on Form S-6 (File No. 333-222460) and related Prospectus. We consent to the use of the aforementioned report in the Registration
Statement and Prospectus, and to the use of our name as it appears under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting
Firm”.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


March 28, 2018
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KELIN CHE,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 13-70454

Agency No. A099-462-646

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 18, 2015** 

Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. 

Kelin Che, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of

Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s 

decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and

protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction

FILED

NOV 25 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual

findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations

created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th

Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility finding based

on the omission from Che’s written statement of the alleged corruption and Che’s

investigation into it, as well as Che’s non-responsiveness regarding the resolution

he sought from officials. See id. at 1040-44 (adverse credibility determination was

reasonable under the REAL ID Act’s “totality of the circumstances” standard); see

also Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973-74 (9th Cir. 2011) (adverse credibility

finding supported where incidents omitted from application materially altered

claim). In the absence of credible testimony, Che’s asylum and withholding of

removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Che’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony found

not credible, and he does not point to any other evidence that shows it is more

likely than not he would be tortured if returned to China. See id. at 1156-57.

Finally, we deny as moot Che’s opposed motion to hold proceedings in

abeyance and the government’s motion to consolidate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 13-70454
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fred BULL, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-6161.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 29, 2001.

Decided July 19, 2001.

Fred Bull, Jr., pro se. Nicholas Stephan Altimari, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, VA, for appellee.

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Fred Bull, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motions *213filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2000), and Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning of the district court.*
      *United States v. Bull,*Nos. CR-95-73; CA-00-111 (E.D. Va. Nov. 14, 2000; filed Dec. 20, 2000 and entered Dec. 21, 2000). 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.*

Bull's claims based upon the rule announced in *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), are without merit. We recently held in *United States v. Sanders,*247 F.3d 139 (4th Cir.2001), that the new rule announced in *Apprendi*is not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review.
From: hearingcharlotte878@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:22:28 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,

Charlotte Hearing

Quitman, GA 31643
No. 58233.

protest 220244-K (New York).

#### Scott B. Parry *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

Since the evidence showed that the shipment under consideration was comprised of a set of 36 bells, it was held that the merchandise falls squarely within the provision in paragraph 1541 (c), as modified, *supra.*Accordingly, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 62750.

#### Beer Stern Import Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 58/5418, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of narrow woven fabrics of cotton similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Beer Stern Import Corp.*v. *United States*(39 Cust. Ct. 294, C.D. 1944), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 59746.

#### Bond Bros. & Co., Inc., and Thornley & Pitt *v.*United States,

protest 242761-K (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended May 25, 1955, effective July 1, 1955, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
No. 68482.

protests 63/10700, etc. (Los Angeles).

#### Edward S. Zerwekh Company, a/c Mercury Supply Company et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of canvas wig blocks, which are composed of compressed cork, cotton, a wooden base, nails, a metal tube, and ribbon, and that the component material of chief value is cotton, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 67087.

protests 60/31217, etc.

#### A. Zerkowitz & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Plaintiff’s application for rehearing denied.
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-40266 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JESUS NARVAEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-97-CR-371-1

- - - - - - - - - - February 26, 1999 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jesus Iturbe Narvaez appeals his conviction of possession with the intent to distribute more than 500 grams of cocaine in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B). He asserts that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress all evidence obtained through a search of his residence. Narvaez contends that the affidavit offered in support of the warrant to search his home lacked sufficient indicia of probable cause thatNo. 98-40266 -2- evidence of drug-trafficking activities would be found there. He

further asserts that the affidavit was so conspicuously lacking in probable cause that the good-faith exception does not apply. He also urges that the district court’s factual findings were clearly erroneous in light of the fact that the bulk of the affidavit refers not to his actions, but rather to those of some individual named “Nerves.” The district court’s factual findings were not clearly erroneous. The district court found, albeit implicitly, that all references in the affidavit to “Nerves” were, in fact, references to the appellant. This finding is supported by the record. See United States v. Rivas , 157 F.3d 364, 367 (5th Cir. 1998). Narvaez’s assertion that the good-faith exception is inapplicable is also unavailing. The affidavit was not so facially deficient that the executing officers could not reasonably have presumed it to be valid. See United States v. Leon , 468 U.S. 897, 923 (1984). Because the good-faith exception is applicable and no novel question of law is presented, this court need not address whether the affidavit contained sufficient indicia of probable

cause. See United States v. Satterwhite , 980 F.2d 317, 320 (5th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, Narvaez’s conviction is AFFIRMED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Willie E. PHILLIPS, also known as Big Willie, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-51215.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided June 21, 2005.

*249Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

John Aloysius Convery, Hasdorff & Convery, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Willie E. Phillips, federal prisoner # 31582-180, appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to manufacture and distribute cocaine base and conspiracy to launder money. Phillips argues that the Government engaged in prosecutorial vindictiveness and breached the terms of his plea agreement by failing to file a motion for a downward departure. He contends that the district court should have enforced this provision or allowed him to withdraw his guilty plea. Phillips also asserts that his sentence is unconstitutional under the Sixth Amendment in light of *Blakely v. Washington,*— U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004).

We review de novo the district court’s determination whether the Government breached a plea agreement. *United States v. Price,*95 F.3d 364, 367 (5th Cir.1996). The defendant bears the burden of establishing a breach. *Id.*As part of the plea agreement, the Government retained the “sole discretion” to determine whether to file a motion for a downward departure on Phillips’s behalf. Phillips concedes that this court has held that when the Government retains discretion whether to file a motion for a downward departure its decision is reviewable only to determine whether the Government acted pursuant to an unconstitutional motive. However, he argues, citing law from other circuits, that this court should expand its review of such *250decisions to include whether the Government acted in bad faith in deciding not to move for a downward departure.

Because the Government retained its discretion to determine whether to move for a downward departure and Phillips has not ascribed any unconstitutional motive to this decision, we are bound by our prior decisions in *United States v. Aderholt,*87 F.3d 740, 741-42 (5th Cir.1996), and *Price*to hold that he has not established a breach of the plea agreement and is not entitled to relief on this issue.

Phillips’s claim of sentencing error under the Sixth Amendment is barred by the waiver-of-appeal provision in his plea agreement. *See United States v. McKinney,*406 F.3d 744, 746-47 (5th Cir.2005).

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Before the First Division,

December 30, 1953

No. 57725.

protest 213728-K (New York).

#### Patel Pein & Hudson, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of hot plate mats of wood the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 57261, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
ex_107978.htm


Exhibit 10.1.3


 


GEOVAX, INC.


AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO SALARY DEFERRAL AGREEMENT


 


This Amendment No. 1 to Salary Deferral Agreement (the “Agreement”) is entered into as of July 1, 2017 by and between GeoVax, Inc., a Georgia Corporation (the “Company”), and Robert T. McNally (the “Employee”).


 


Whereas, the Company and Employee entered into a Salary Deferral Agreement (the “Original Agreement”) dated April 25, 2016; and


 


Whereas, the Company and Employee recognize that it is in the best interests of the Company, its shareholders, and its collective Employees to conserve the Company’s cash resources; and as part of its cash conservation measures, the Company has asked certain of its employees to accept salary reductions and/or deferrals; and


 


Whereas, the Company and Employee acknowledge that the Original Agreement and this amendment have been entered into for the express purpose of conserving the Company’s cash resources and not for executive compensation tax planning purposes, and 


 


Whereas, Employee currently is currently earning an annualized gross salary of $275,000 (“Base Salary”), which has been previously reduced by 40% to $165,000, based on Employee’s reduction of his time devoted to the Company’s business; 


 


Now, therefore, the parties hereby agree as follows:


 


	
			1.

				
			Accumulated Salary Deferral.

			
	 	Employee acknowledges his prior verbal agreement to continue the salary deferral pursuant to the Original Agreement through June 30, 2017. The Company and Employee acknowledge and agree that the accumulated amount of deferred salary owed to Employee as of June 30, 2017 is $164,374.91.



 


	
			2.

				
			Continuation of Salary Deferral.

			
	 	Employee agrees to continue deferral of all but $25,000 of his Base Salary, which amount will be accrued and paid to Employee as described below.



 


	
			3.

				
			Discontinuance of Salary Reduction and/or Deferral

			
	 	Employee’s Salary Deferral pursuant to this Agreement shall end upon the occurrence of a significant event (to include financing, corporate partnership, etc., as determined solely by the Company) (the “Discontinuance Date”).



 


	
			4.

				
			Payment of Accumulated Deferred Salary.

			
	 	At the Discontinuance Date, the Company in its sole discretion will determine the form of payment to be made to Employee for the accumulated Deferred Salary. Such payment may be made in cash, in the form of Company Stock, or in a combination of cash and stock.



 


ACCEPTANCE


	 	 	 	 
	
			Employee

				 	 	
			Date

				 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	
			Agreed:

				 	 	 	 
	 	
			GeoVax, Inc.

				 	 	 
	 	
			By:
From: pepsiguy@netzero.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:46:52 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,

Marc Lelli

Gibbsboro, NJ 08026