alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JAKELINE ESMERALDA HERNANDEZ

PEREZ DE RIVAS and JAKELINE YANETH RIVAS

- HERNANDEZ,

Petitioners,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 12

- 73433

Agency Nos. A099

- 539

- 007

A099

- 539

- 008

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 24, 2017 **

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

Jakeline Esmeralda Hernandez

- Perez de Rivas and J akeline Yaneth Rivas

-

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth C ircuit 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

MAY 31 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 12

- 73433

Hernandez, natives and citizens of El Salvador, 1 petition for review of the Board of

Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration

judge’s (“IJ”) decisio n denying their application for asylum, 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, applying the standa rds 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 determination

based o n Hernandez

- Perez de Rivas’s inconsistent testimony regarding gang

threats to her younger son, and the number of assailants involved in the shooting

incident outside her home. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable

under the totality of t he circumstances). Thus, in the absence of credible

testimony, in this case, Hernandez

- Perez de Rivas’s asylum and withholding of

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

S ubstantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection

because Hernandez

- Perez de Rivas failed to show it is more likely than not that she

would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of El

1 On March 24

, 2017, the cour t received a filing by Hernandez

- Perez de Rivas with a statement that her daught er , Rivas

- Hernandez, has been approved for DACA and that Hernandez Perez de Rivas wishes to proceed with the petition.3 12

- 73433

Salvador. See Silaya v. Mukasey , 524 F.3d 1 066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

December 20, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
135021 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, Justices Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 135021 COA: 268264 Kent CC: 04-009942-FC RUDOLPH JEROME HORTON, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e application for leave to appeal the August 28, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall address: (1) whether the serologist’s te stimony regarding nontes tifying technicians’ findings and reports was “testim onial” within the meaning of Crawford v Washington

, 541 US 36; 124 S Ct 1354; 158 L Ed 2d 177 (2004); (2) wh ether the defendant waived the Crawford issue; and (3) whether the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the defendant’s substantial rights were affected by the error, if any, and that the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judici al proceedings in this case was seriously affected by the error, if any.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to place this case on the April 2008 session calendar for argument and submission. Appella nt’s brief and appendix must be filed no later than January 31, 2008, and appellee’s brief and appendix, if appellee chooses to submit an appendix, must be filed no later than February 21, 2008.

The Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan and the Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan ar e invited to file briefs amicus cu riae, to be filed no later than March 6, 2008. Other persons or groups interested in the determination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court fo r permission to file br iefs amicus curiae, with such briefs to be file d no later than March 6, 2008.

p1213 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 20, 2007

Clerk
Before the Third Division,

June 18, 1957

No. 60883.

#### Julius Wile Sons & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 130007-K (Philadelphia).

*545Opinion by

Johnson, 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. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C. C. P. A. 130, C. A. D. 608) and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 64153.

protests 109121-K, etc. (Baltimore).

#### Dundalk Liquor Company, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Richardson, 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. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C.C.P.A. 130, C.A.D. 508), and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C.D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Before the First Division,

July 1, 1940

No. 44071

#### Protest 836987-G of W. X. Huber Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Brown, J.

The Government analyst reported that the samples are shaped like phonograph records and consist of about 8 percent paper backed with about 92 percent of a composition which contains approximately 20 percent ■shellac, 75.2 percent clay, and 4.8 percent carbon black pigment. The testimony of the witness for the plaintiff was held insufficient to establish that the merchandise was not in chief value of shellac or copal. The protest was therefore ■overruled.
#### SOL KANTOR, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. NED J. PARSEKIAN, ACTING DIRECTOR, *ETC.,*DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

See same case below: 72 *N. J. Super.*588.

*Mr. Arthur J. Sills*and *Mr. Thomas F. Tansey*for the petitioner.

*Mr. Sol Kantor pro se*for the respondent.

April 30, 1962.
Exhibit 10.44

February 26, 2015

 

Timothy S. Jenks

President and Chief Executive Officer

NeoPhotonics Corporation

2911 Zanker Road

San Jose, CA 95134

 

RE: Extension of Milestone Date

 

Dear Mr. Jenks:

 

On April 27, 2012, NeoPhotonics Corporation (the “Company”) entered into a Rights Agreement (the “Rights Agreement”) with Open Joint Stock Company “RUSNANO”, an entity organized under the laws of the Russian Federation (“Rusnano”).  All capitalized terms used in this letter but not otherwise defined have the meanings given to them in the Rights Agreement.

 

As you know, the Company and Rusnano have been engaged in productive good faith discussions regarding the Company’s long-term business plan in Russia and its expected investments and capital expenditures over the next five years.  We hope to complete such discussions over the coming weeks and reflect our mutual agreement on these matters in an amendment to the Rights Agreement.

 

Section 6(e)(iii) of the Rights Agreement provides that if the Company and its Russian Subsidiary do not achieve certain milestones by March 31, 2015, the Company will owe a Penalty to Rusnano.  In light of the ongoing discussions between the parties, Rusnano hereby agrees that such March 31, 2015 date shall be extended to June 30, 2015.  Therefore, the Penalty payment date set forth in Section 6(e)(iii) is hereby extended to June 30, 2015.

 

If the foregoing is acceptable, please sign below and return the counter-signed copy to us. 

 

Yours very sincerely,

 


	
Open Joint Stock Company “RUSNANO”
	
 
	
Agreed and Acknowledged By:
NeoPhotonics Corporation

	
 
	
 
	
 

	
/s/ Yuri A. Udaltsov
	
 
	
/s/ Tim S. Jenks

	
Name: Yuri A. Udaltsov
	
 
	
Name: Tim S. Jenks

	
Title: Deputy Chairman of the Management Board
	
 
	
Title: Chairman and CEO
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Debra J. Marks, Appellant.

[635 NYS2d 575]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that County Court should have refused to admit testimony concerning the uncharged crime of prostitution on the ground that its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value. We reject that contention. The record shows that defense counsel in his opening statement advised the jury of defendant’s involvement in prostitution. Moreover, defense counsel did not object to earlier testimony from the same witness that defendant had propositioned him. In any event, the admission of that evidence is not prejudicial.

We agree with defendant, however, that the court erred in precluding the defense from impeaching two of the People’s witnesses with the fact that their prior statements made no mention of material facts that they related at trial *(see, People v Bishop,*206 AD2d 884, 885, *lv denied*84 NY2d 933). That evidence should have been admitted and the jury should have determined what weight to accord it *(see, People v Bishop, supra).*In light of the overwhelming proof of defendant’s guilt, however, that error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt *(see, People v Malizia,*62 NY2d 755, *cert denied*469 US 932; *People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230; *People v Hill,*138 AD2d 629, *lv denied*71 NY2d 1028).

The contention of defendant that the court erred in failing to allow her to show her scars to the jury has not been preserved for our review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to exercise our power to review it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice *(see,*CPL 470.15 [6] [a]).

We have reviewed the remaining contentions of defendant and conclude that they are without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Cayuga County Court, Corning, J.—Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Lawton, Wesley, Doerr and Balio, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 Exchange Act  , Company
 1.
    
    The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010, to which
this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Periodic Report), fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 In Witness Whereof
 /s/ Philip E. Soran
    
    /s/ John R. JuddPhilip E. Soran 

Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
    
    John R. Judd 

Chief Financial Officer
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Lionell Tholmer,

Petitioner, No. Civ. S 04-2491 FCD PAN P

vs. Order

C. M. Harrison, et al.,

Respondents.

-oOoDecember 8, 2005, petitioner requested an extension of time

to object to the November 23, 2005, findings and recommendations. 

Petitioner’s request is granted and time is extended until

January 11, 2006. Petitioner’s request for copies from the court

file is denied. No further extensions will be granted absent a

showing of manifest injustice.

So ordered.

Dated: December 15, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02491-FCD-EFB Document 33 Filed 12/16/05 Page 1 of 1
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 37113

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

MARGARITA T. ZEPEDA,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2010 Unpublished Opinion No. 603

Filed: August 24, 2010

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Twin 

Falls County. Hon. G. Richard Bevan, District Judge. 

Appeal from judgment of conviction and sentence for forgery, dismissed.

Greg S. Silvey, Kuna, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before LANSING, Chief Judge, GUTIERREZ, Judge

and GRATTON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Margarita T. Zepeda was charged with two counts of forgery, Idaho Code § 18-3601. 

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Zepeda pleaded guilty to one count, and the State dismissed the 

other count, agreed not to file a persistent violator enhancement, and agreed to recommend a 

unified sentence of thirteen years with five years determinate. As a term of the plea agreement, 

Zepeda expressly waived her right to appeal any issues “involving the plea or the sentencing and 

any rulings made by the court,” except that she retained the right to appeal the sentence if the 

court exceeded the State’s sentencing recommendation. The district court imposed the sentence 

recommended by the State, a unified thirteen-year term with five years determinate, to run 

concurrently with Zepeda’s sentence in another case. Zepeda appeals, contending only that her 

sentence is excessive.
2

A criminal defendant may waive her appellate rights as a term of a plea agreement, and 

such a waiver is enforceable. State v. Murphy, 125 Idaho 456, 457, 872 P.2d 719, 720 (1994). 

Here, Zepeda has presented no argument as to why the waiver of her right to appeal should be 

deemed invalid or unenforceable. Therefore, it appearing that Zepeda has waived the right to 

appeal the only issue that she attempts to raise to this Court, the appeal is hereby dismissed.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD P. FOSTER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2557 RRB PAN P

vs.

M.D. McDONALD, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

By request filed February 28, 2006, defendants seek an extension of time, nunc

pro tunc, to respond to plaintiff’s February 1, 2006 motion to compel further responses to

discovery. Good cause appearing, defendants’ request will be granted. Defendants are

cautioned, however, that no further extensions of time will be granted. IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ February 28, 2006 request for nunc pro tunc extension of time is

granted; and

2. Defendants are granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:04-cv-02557-RRB-EFB Document 32 Filed 03/08/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

and serve an opposition to plaintiff’s February 1, 2006 motion to compel discovery. Plaintiff’s

reply, if any, shall be filed seven days thereafter.

DATED: March 6, 2006.

/001; fost2557.36

Case 2:04-cv-02557-RRB-EFB Document 32 Filed 03/08/06 Page 2 of 2
DJI	Inspire 1 User Manual (EN) v1.8 -

http://dl.djicdn.com/downloads/inspire_1/fr/Inspire_1_User_Manual_v1.0_fr.pdf
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Gene Hodges, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Websense, Inc; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of Websense as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report; 

4. Websense’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for Websense and have: 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to Websense,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared; 

(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to bedesigned under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of Websense’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisannual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this annual report based on such evaluation; and 

(d) Disclosed in this annual report any change in Websense’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring Websense’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, Websense’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. Websense’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to Websense’s auditors and the audit committee of Websense’s board of directors: 

(a) Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect Websense’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in Websense’s internal controls over financial reporting. 

Date: October 28,2009
No. 52072.

#### Overseas Mercantile Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 983868-G, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). The claim at 50 *184percent ad valorem under paragraph 915, plus any additional duty applicable under paragraph 924, was therefore sustained.
No. 59607.

protests 245209-K, etc. (New York).

#### Alfred Orlik, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of figures similar in all material respects to those passed upon in *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 15, C. A. D. 458), the items of merchandise marked with the letter “A” were held dutiable at 20 percent under paragraph 1547 (a), Tariff Act of 1930, and the items marked with the letter “B” at 10 percent under the provision in said paragraph, as modified by the Annecy Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 52373), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T. D. 52476), for “Works of art ** * **statuary, sculptures, or copies, replicas, or reproductions thereof, valued at not less than $2.50.”
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 49 (Wednesday, March 14, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11927-11928]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4660]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 5721]


Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition; 
Determinations: ``Royal Portraits of Celebration''

    Summary: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 
of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of 
April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition

[[Page 11928]]

``Royal Portraits of Celebration'', imported from abroad for temporary 
exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The 
objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign 
owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display 
of the exhibit objects at the National Portrait Gallery, Smithsonian 
Institution, Washington, DC, from on or about April 27, 2007, until on 
or about September 3, 2007, and at possible additional venues yet to be 
determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these 
Determinations is ordered to be published in the Federal Register.
    For Further Information Contact: For further information, including 
a list of the exhibit objects, contact Paul Manning, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: (202) 
453-8050). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th 
Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.

    Dated: March 5, 2007.
C. Miller Crouch,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural 
Affairs, Department of State.
 [FR Doc. E7-4660 Filed 3-13-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
No. 48562.

#### Protest 988249-G of F. B. Vandegrift & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

The record showed that the bags containing the seed were marked “Tsehechoslowakai” and the collector required that the bags be marked with the word “Czechoslovakia” before they were released from customs custody. As the merchandise was marked with a foreign word, which is not a compliance with the statute, the merchandise was held not legally marked, and the protest was overruled.