alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-60950

Summary Calendar

YONG CHUN TANG,

Petitioner

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U S ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A98 499 658

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Yong Chun Tang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of a

decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming an immigration

judge’s (IJ) decision to deny his application for asylum, withholding of removal,

or relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Tang sought immigration

relief based upon his assertion that his wife was forced to abort their second

child and he will be forced to undergo sterilization if he is removed to China.

The IJ denied relief after finding, inter alia, that his asylum application was

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 3, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-60950

2

time barred. The IJ also determined that Tang had not credibly established his

entitlement to withholding of removal. The IJ further determined that even if

Tang’s allegations were considered true, his allegations did not qualify as torture

under the CAT. The BIA upheld the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. Tang

challenges the IJ and the BIA’s negative credibility determinations, contending

that he established that he was entitled to withholding of removal.

Tang does not challenge the determination that his asylum application

was time barred. He also does not challenge the determination that he failed to

prove that he was eligible for CAT relief. He has therefore abandoned any

challenge to these determinations. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833

(5th Cir. 2003); Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744,

748 (5th Cir. 1987).

The date discrepancies identified by the BIA and IJ are supported by the

record. Tang’s arguments do not indicate that it is plain that, considering the

totality of the circumstances, no reasonable fact-finder would make the same

adverse credibility ruling that was made in his case. See Wang v. Holder,

569 F.3d 531, 538 (5th Cir. 2009). In light of the BIA’s finding that Tang failed

to provide credible testimony, the BIA’s determination that Tang failed to

establish his eligibility for withholding of removal is supported by substantial

evidence. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b); 8 U.S.C § 1231(b)(3)(C); Efe v. Ashcroft,

293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002).

Tang’s petition for review is DENIED.
### NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2008-3113 ARMANDA E. COLES,

Petitioner,

v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,

Respondent. Petitioner for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in AT0752050486-X-2. ON MOTION 

### ORDER Upon consideration of the parties' motion for reconsideration of the court's order dismissing this petition for failure to prosecute, and the parties' motion to voluntarily dismiss the petition, Upon consideration thereof, IT IS ORDERED THAT: The motion for reconsideration is granted. The mandate is recalled and the October 16, 2008 dismissal order is vacated.

The motion to voluntarily dismiss the petition is granted.(3) Each side shall bear its own costs. FOR THE COURT

/s/ Jan Horbalv Jan Horbaly Clerk 

### FILEDRC U.S. COURT OF APPEALs THE FEDERAL CIulTr° MAR 2 4 2009 Mit HOhodul CLERK 

# MAR 2 4 2009 Date

cc: Ronald S. Webster, Esq. Allison Kidd-Miller, Esq. s20 

# MAR 2 4 2009 ISSUED AS A MANDATE:

2008-3113 2
**Exhibit 21.1**

**List of Subsidiaries**

We operate through tendirect and indirect wholly-owned subsidiaries, including:

·                  INTAC International Holdings Limited, a Hong Kong corporation formed onJanuary 3, 2001, which acts as our primary distributor of telecommunicationsproducts into the Asia-Pacific Rim;

·                  INTAC Holdco Corp., a Delaware corporation formed on October 10,2001, which holds certain of the shares of INTAC International HoldingsLimited;

·                  Global Creative International Limited, a Hong Kong corporation formed onMarch 15, 2002, which acts as a distributor of refurbishedtelecommunications products into the Asia-Pacific Rim;

·                  Beijing Huana Xinlong Information and Technology Development Co., Ltd, aChina corporation acquired in December 2004, which is a leading Chinesedeveloper of management software for educational institution administration;

·                  FUTAC Group Limited, a British Virgin Islands corporation formed onJanuary 2, 2002, which imports automobiles for distribution into mainlandChina;

·                  INTAC Telecommunications Limited, a Hong Kong corporation formed onMarch 8, 2002, which acts as a distributor of telecommunications productsinto the Asia-Pacific Rim;

·                  Intac (Tianjin) International Trading Co., formerly “Intac Auto MobileTrading Company Limited”, a China corporation formed on April 9, 2002,which imports automobiles for distribution into mainland China;

·                  INTAC Deutschland GmbH, a German corporation formed on September 1,2004, which acts as our primary purchasing agent and distributor of productsfrom Europe into the Asia-Pacific Rim;

·                  Beijing Intac Media Advertising Company Limited, a China corporationformed on September 15, 2004, which provides advertising services throughIntac Purun; and

·                  Beijing Intac Meidi Technology Development Company Limited, a Chinacorporation formed on September 21, 2004, which provides value addedservices through Intac Purun.

·                  Intac International Management Consultancy Beijing Limited, a Chinacorporation formed in January, 2006, which provides business managementadvisory services.

We also operate through a60% owned subsidiary:

·                  Beijing Intac Purun Educational Development Limited, a China corporationformed in October 2003, which provides comprehensive employmentinformation over its Internet portal to facilitate students’ employment searchand future career development.

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

FRANK TAYLOR, JR. :

Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTION

:

:

v. :

:

:

MEDICAL DEPARTMENT G.W.H.C.F., :

DELAWARE COUNTY PRISON, et al., : No. 04-0600

Defendants. :

OPINION

AND NOW, this 17th day of May, 2011, upon consideration of Plaintiff Frank Taylor’s

Memorandum of Law (Doc. No. 102), Defendants’ Memorandum in Response (Doc. No. 105),

and the Settlement Agreement reached between the parties in this case, the Court concludes that 1

Plaintiff’s contention that his claims against District Attorney Michael Green, Assistant District

Attorney Coley Reynolds, Deputy District Attorney Daniel McDevitt, Detective Paul Corsi, and

Judge Richard Cappelli survived the Settlement Agreement lacks merit. 

In the Settlement Agreement reached by the parties, Plaintiff released Delaware County

and any of its “directors, officers, employees, agents, subsidiaries, affiliates, contractors,

attorneys, insurers, executors, administrators, successors, predecessors, trustees, assigns, and any

other person, agency, department, company or entity who may be liable for the acts . . . from any

and all liability and all manner of actions” that Plaintiff ever had against them. He accordingly

released from liability the individuals listed above, as they were all employed by Delaware

County when the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s causes of action against them took place. 

At the Court’s request, Defendants’ counsel provided it with a redacted copy of the 1

Settlement Agreement reached between the parties on January 21, 2011 so that the Court could

consider what, if any, claims remained. 
Accordingly, the Court’s March 16, 2011 Order dismissing this case with prejudice pursuant to

Local Rule of Civil Procedure 41.1(b) stands and this matter shall remain closed. 

2

BY THE COURT: 

/s/ Legrome D. Davis

Legrome D. Davis, J. 

Plaintiff complains that the five defendants listed above were never served with his

2

Second Amended Complaint. Though true, Plaintiff’s decision to release this individuals from

liability means that their failure to be served is irrelevant. 

2
Exhibit 10.01(a)

     

    Schedule identifying agreements substantially identical to the form of Shanghai Public Rental Housing Overall Pre-Sale Contract filed as Exhibit 10.01
      hereto

     

    	
            Address Number

          	
            Number of Units

          	
            Number of Square Meters

          	
            
              Unit Price Per Square Meter (RMB)

            

          	
            
              Total Price for Purchase (RMB)

            

          
	
            14

          	
            18

          	
            2,420.10

          	
            18,137

          	
            43,893,353.70

          
	
            21

          	
            36

          	
            3,906.36

          	
            17,481

          	
            68,287,079.16

          
	
            41

          	
            54

          	
            4,497.84

          	
            16,111

          	
            72,464,700.24

          
	
            42

          	
            54

          	
            4,497.84

          	
            16,154

          	
            72,658,107.36
Document

Amendment No. 2


CROWN HOLDINGS, INC.
2013 STOCK-BASED INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN


Pursuant to the power reserved to it in Section 12.1 of the Crown Holdings, Inc. 2013 Stock-Based Incentive Compensation Plan ( the "2013 Plan"), the Board of Directors of Crown Holdings, Inc. hereby amends the 2013 Plan, effective February 25, 2021, as follows:


1.Section 19 is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:


"19.    Recoupment


Notwithstanding any provision of the Plan or any Award to the contrary, with respect to any Award (or portion thereof) that is based upon a Performance Goal, if the Company is subsequently required to restate its financial statements resulting in the Company's financial results being reduced such that the Award (or any portion thereof) would not have been awarded (or would have been awarded with respect to a smaller number of shares of Common Stock), the Committee may reduce such Award if it determines, in its sole discretion, that the Participant engaged in intentional misconduct or fraud that resulted in such restatement. In such event, the Participant's Award may be reduced to the amount, if any, that would have been earned on the basis of the revised financial statements, as determined by the Committee in its sole discretion and the Company shall be entitled to seek recoupment from the Participant (in payment of cash or delivery of an amount of shares of Common Stock) for the amount of any excess, as the Committee deems appropriate under the circumstances. As a condition to participation in the Plan, each Participant shall agree that his or her Award (or a portion thereof) may be reduced or recouped pursuant to this Section 19."  


*    *    *


To record the adoption of this Amendment No. 2 to the 2013 Plan, Crown Holdings, Inc. has authorized its officers to affix its corporate name effective as of the date indicated above. 




12609954.3.TAX


































                            






                                CROWN HOLDINGS, INC.




                                By:  /s/ Timothy J. Donahue
                                Name:  Timothy J. Donahue
                                Title:  President and Chief Executive Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JAKE and MARIE SANDOVAL, :

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-4282

Plaintiffs, :

:

v. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION;

BAYER AG;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE, PLC;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE;

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM

:

:

:

:

:

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

:

Defendants. :

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

To the Clerk of the Court:

Kindly enter the appearances of Hope S. Freiwald, Aline Fairweather, Erin

Brennan and Kirstin J. Miller as attorneys for defendant SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a

GlaxoSmithKline.

Respectfully Submitted,

_____________________________ _____________________________

Hope S. Freiwald Aline Fairweather

_____________________________ _____________________________

Erin Brennan Kirstin J. Miller

DECHERT PRICE & RHOADS

4000 Bell Atlantic Tower

1717 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793

(215) 994-4000

Case 2:02-cv-04282-JCJ Document 8 Filed 10/04/2002 Page 1 of 1
cc: Kevin Kennedy Attorney General/Carson City White Pine County District Attorney White Pine County Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 968 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 968

  Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1902) to protect our 
  Social Security system and improve benefits for current and future 
                              generations.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 26, 2018

 Mr. Larson of Connecticut (for himself, Ms. Speier, Mr. Courtney, Ms. 
DeLauro, Mr. Carbajal, Ms. Lofgren, Mr. Sires, Mr. Michael F. Doyle of 
  Pennsylvania, Mr. Lamb, Mr. Capuano, Mr. Pascrell, Ms. Sanchez, Mr. 
 Ruiz, Mr. Soto, Mr. Perlmutter, Mr. Kildee, Mr. Yarmuth, Mr. Clyburn, 
 Mr. Vargas, Mr. Higgins of New York, Mr. Cartwright, Ms. Gabbard, Mr. 
David Scott of Georgia, Mr. Evans, Mr. Jeffries, Mr. Raskin, Mr. Pocan, 
  Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Huffman, Ms. Castor of Florida, Mr. Beyer, Mr. 
  Tonko, Mr. Ben Ray Lujan of New Mexico, Ms. Matsui, Mr. Thompson of 
California, Mr. DeSaulnier, Mr. McNerney, Ms. Velazquez, Mr. Espaillat, 
 Mr. Ted Lieu of California, Mr. Gomez, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Vela, Mr. 
   Bera, Mr. Price of North Carolina, Mr. Panetta, Mr. Norcross, Mr. 
  Lawson of Florida, Mr. Cardenas, Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham of New 
Mexico, Mr. Aguilar, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Carson of Indiana, Mr. Brady of 
  Pennsylvania, Ms. Esty of Connecticut, and Ms. Eshoo) submitted the 
   following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1902) to protect our 
  Social Security system and improve benefits for current and future 
                              generations.

    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1902) to protect our 
Social Security system and improve benefits for current and future 
generations. All points of order against consideration of the bill are 
waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order 
against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question shall 
be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to 
final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate 
equally divided and controlled by Mr. Larson of Connecticut and an 
opponent; and (2) one motion to recommit.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2018083EN.01000401.xml

| 5.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 83/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 83/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 January 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Stadion Amsterdam CV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-463/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 77/388/EEC - Third subparagraph of Article 12(3)(a) - Reduced rate of VAT - Annex H, category 7 - Single supply comprised of two distinct elements - Selective application of a reduced rate of VAT to one of those elements - ‘World of Ajax’ tour - Visit to the AFC Ajax museum))

(2018/C 083/05)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Stadion Amsterdam CV

Applicant:

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 2001/4/EC of 19 January 2001, must be interpreted as meaning that a single supply, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, comprised of two distinct elements, one principal, the other ancillary, which, if they were supplied separately, would be subject to different rates of value added tax, must be taxed solely at the rate of value added tax applicable to that single supply, that rate being determined according to the principal element, even if the price of each element forming the full price paid by a consumer in order to be able to receive that supply can be identified.

---

(1)  OJ C 410, 7.11.2016.

1

---
No. 65369.

#### M. S. Cowen Co. *v.*United States,

protest 58/422 (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *The Best Foods, Inc.*(47 C.C.P.A. 163, C.A.D. 751), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Before the Third Division,

January 23, 1950

No. 53954.

#### Morris J. Golombeck et al. *v.*United States,

protests 133466-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation that the merchandise consists of laurel leaves similar in all material respects to those the subject of *The Levy & Levis Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(23 Cust. Ct. 8, C. D. 1180), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Case 2:04-cv-20224-HB Document 2 Filed 05/10/2004 Page 1 of 6
Case 2:04-cv-20224-HB Document 2 Filed 05/10/2004 Page 2 of 6
Case 2:04-cv-20224-HB Document 2 Filed 05/10/2004 Page 3 of 6
Case 2:04-cv-20224-HB Document 2 Filed 05/10/2004 Page 4 of 6
Case 2:04-cv-20224-HB Document 2 Filed 05/10/2004 Page 5 of 6
Case 2:04-cv-20224-HB Document 2 Filed 05/10/2004 Page 6 of 6
IPAC Operational Metrics for October 2021

paca:

Volume by Transaction Type
Dollar Amount] % of Total Dollar Amount! Number of Transactions] % of Total Number of Transactions|

Fiduciary (Investment & Borrowing) 13,388,577,158,482| 38.65% | 19,267| 18.29%

Buy/Sell 173,923 263,959] 34,862] 80.54% |

Benefits (RITS) 8,451,129,161 371] 0.35%

[Check Aftermath (TRACS) 330,852,394] 10.0086] 365] 0.82%

[Zero Dollar o 10.00%6| Fl 0.00%

[Grand Total - October 2021 13,571,282, 409,996| 700.005] 105,366| 10.00% |

[Grand Total - September 2021 9,005,054,985,807| 100.00%6| 163,820] 100.00%6|

Sey ‘to October Change 4,566,227,424,188|

percentage Coane! 50.7%] po 85.756]

[Grand Total - October 2020 17,764,499,289,660| [ SCTM~TM~TMCCSCé AB, 722

[Oct 2020 to Oct 2021 Change ~4,193, 216,873,664]

eaeceneage Coane -23.656]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

KHALIF WARD : CRIMINAL ACTION

:

v. :

:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : NO. 04-112-01

:

ORDER

AND NOW, this 19th day of August, 2009, upon consideration of the Motion

Requesting the Modification of Term of Imprisonment Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2)

and Sect. 3553(A) (Document No. 40), the Defendant’s Supplemental Motion Under 18

U.S.C. §3582(c) for Sentence Reduction (Document No. 44), the government’s response,

and after a review of the record, it is ORDERED that the motions are DENIED. 

 /s/ Timothy J. Savage 

TIMOTHY J. SAVAGE, J.

Case 2:04-cr-00112-TJS Document 48 Filed 08/19/09 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18
of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. §1350), Gary Velasquez, President and Chief Executive Officer of Vitria Technology, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company) hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge, as follows:



The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
period ended June 30, 2003, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Periodic Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that
the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition at the end of the period covered by the Periodic Report and results of operations of the Company for the period covered by the
Periodic Report.



IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, the undersigned has set his hand hereto as of this 13th day of August, 2003.



By:

/s/ GARY VELASQUEZGARY VELASQUEZPRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER




A signed
original of this written statement required by Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. §1350), has been provided to Vitria Technology,
Inc. and will be retained by Vitria Technology, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Vitria Technology, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the
Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
No. 50316.

#### Protests 57163-K, etc., of Liberty Lace & Netting Works (New York).

*222Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83, decided February 5, 1945.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries. The protests were sustained to this extent.