alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT SANDRA E. ELLIS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. OFFICE MAX, INCORPORATED; SCOTT LYNCH; KEN STERN; TERRY VAUGHN, No. 99-2595 Defendants-Appellees, and MATT HEFFNER, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-390-3-MU) Submitted: August 22, 2000 Decided: September 20, 2000 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL N. Clifton Cannon, Jr., Gastonia, North Carolina, for Appellant. W. T. Cranfill, Jr., Bruce M. Steen, Robert B. Meyer, MCGUIRE, WOODS, BATTLE & BOOTHE, L.L.P., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM:Sandra E. Ellis appeals from the dismissal of her wrongful discharge suit against Office Max, Inc. and four of its employees. We affirm.Ellis' opening brief contends that she never received the Defendants' motion to dismiss. This issue was first raised in a motion for reconsideration, which Ellis filed after noting her appeal. Because she has not amended her notice of appeal, the issue of whether she received the Defendants' dispositive motion is not before us. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii). Ellis' reply brief reiterates her claim that she never received the Defendants' motion and further argues that the motion was meritless. We do not address the latter claim, because it was not raised below or in Ellis' opening brief. See Lewis v. INS , 194 F.3d 539, 547 n.9 (4th Cir. 1999); Skipper v. French , 130 F.3d 603, 610 (4th Cir. 1997). For these reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentionsare adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2
#### The Attorney-General *v.*The North America Life Insurance Company.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and printing disbursements.

Bockes, J. taking no part.
Before the First Division,

June 10, 1948

No. 52370.

protests 133788-K (B), etc. (New York).

#### Max Durafourg Gem Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
<PAGE>

                                                                 Exhibit 10.17.1

                               FIFTH AMENDMENT TO

                        ON-POINT TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS, INC.

                      1994 STOCK OPTION PLAN FOR DIRECTORS

     The On-Point Technology Systems, Inc. 1994 Stock Option Plan for Directors
("Plan"), as amended, is further amended as follows:

     1. Section 3, as amended, shall be further amended by deleting the
introductory language and subparagraphs (i) and (ii) to paragraph (c) and
substituting in lieu thereof the following:

          "(c) Options shall be granted to Directors of the Company who are not
     also employees of the Company automatically in accordance with the
     following formula:

               (i) An option for 10,000 shares shall be granted to each such
          Director as of each June 30.

               (ii) An option for 10,000 shares shall be granted to each new
          Director who is not also an employee of the Company as of the date of
          becoming a Director, unless he or she first becomes a Director between
          April 1 and June 30 of any year."

     2. Section 5, as amended, shall be further amended by deleting the same in
its entirety and substituting in lieu thereof the following:

          "The purchase price under each option issued shall be equal to the
     fair market value of the Stock on the date of grant of the option."

     3. This Amendment shall be effective as of May 22, 2000.

     IN WITNESS THEREOF, the Company has executed this Fifth Amendment as of the
22nd day of May, 2000.

                              ON-POINT TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS, INC.


                              By: /s/ Frederick Sandvick
                                  ----------------------------------
                                  Frederick Sandvick,
                                  Chief Executive Officer
No. 54762.

#### Armour and Company et al. *v.*United States,

protests 157257-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San A ntonio, Texas** 

February 20, 2014

N o. 04

- 12

- 00841

- CV

SCHUHARDT CONSULTING PROFIT SHARING PLAN , Allan P. Blosxom, III, Thomas

O. Stoner, Stormy Night, LLC and TOS Ranch, LLC,

Appellants

v.

DOUBLE KNOBS MOUNTAIN RANCH, Inc and Carlton E. Thompson,

Appelle es

From the 38th Judicial District Court, Uvalde County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011

- 09

- 28311

- CV

Honorable Mickey R. Pennington, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The Appellant’s Unopposed Motion to Withdraw and Substitute Lead Counsel is

GRANTED.

_________________________________ Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 20th day of February, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
March 23, 1950

No. 54143.

Suit 4609.

#### Waitt & Bond, Inc. *v.*United States.

C. D. 1113 reversed December 12, 1949. C. A. D. 421.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WEIKE LUO, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 20-72504 

Agency No. A200-264-886 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 14, 2023**

San Francisco, California

Before: HAWKINS, S.R. THOMAS, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Weike Luo, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board 

of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing his appeal from an 

Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for asylum, 

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. 

* 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

FEB 16 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

“Where, as here, the BIA agrees with the IJ’s reasoning, we review both 

decisions.” Garcia-Martinez v. Sessions, 886 F.3d 1291, 1293 (9th Cir. 2018). 

We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence, applying the 

standards governing adverse credibility determinations under the REAL ID Act. 

Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039–40 (9th Cir. 2010). We have jurisdiction 

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination 

based on inconsistencies between Luo’s testimony, in which he stated that the 

Chinese government forcibly induced his pregnant wife’s early labor, and his 

asylum interview, in which he stated that the Chinese government forced his wife 

to have a cesarean section. See Li v. Garland, 13 F.4th 954, 959 (9th Cir. 2021)

(“[E]ven minor inconsistencies that have a bearing on a petitioner’s veracity may 

constitute the basis for an adverse credibility determination.” (quoting Ren v. 

Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1089 (9th Cir. 2011))). Luo’s explanations, which 

themselves contained inconsistencies, do not “compel a contrary conclusion.” See 

id. at 960–61. Further, substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that 

Luo’s corroborative evidence did not independently establish his eligibility for 

relief. See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014). 

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Luo’s Convention 

Against Torture claim because it is based on the same testimony the agency found 
3 

not credible, and Luo does not point to any other evidence in the record that 

compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured if 

returned to China. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048–49.

PETITION DENIED.
No. 47976.

#### Protest 980111-G of Rev. L. G. Ligutti (Pembina).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

The record showed that after several continuances counsel for the defendant objected to a further continuance and the case was ordered submitted by the judge presiding on circuit. From a careful examination of the record nothing was found to establish the plaintiff’s claim. The protest was therefore overruled.
Before the Second Division,

January 30, 1943

No. 47973.

#### Protest 950539-G of A. W. Fenton Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Green*v. *United States*(8 Cust. Ct. 173, C. D. 599) the claim for free entry under paragraph 1750 was sustained.
#### Frederick R. Jorgensen, *Appellant v.*Horace K. Thurber, *Respondent.*

— Appeal from part of judgment which disallows interest before commencement of action dismissed, without costs. Opinion by Dykman, J.;

Cullen, J., not sitting.
To:      The Board of eBanker USA.com, Inc.

From:    Michael Ruxin, Director, Chairman and CEO; Gordon Segal, Director;
         and Gerald Willman,  Director,  Global Med Technologies, Inc.

Global Med Technologies,  Inc. (Global) Hereby Requests the Proposed Terms for a
Loan Extension from eBanker USA.com, Inc. (eBanker)

April 14, 2000
Loan             :  eBanker agrees to commit to extend the $750,000  convertible
                    loan at 12% interest per annum with  interest and  principal
                    due  January 1, 2001.  eBanker  will have the right to elect
                    conversion  on  the  due  date  prior  to  repayment   being
                    accepted.

                    Global will  provide  eBanker with  30-days  advance  notice
                    should it choose  to repay of the Loan  early.  In that time
                    eBanker  will  have the  right to elect  for  conversion  or
                    repayment.

Commitment  Fee  : 22,222  free  common  shares of Global  (5% fee,  based on a
                    market price of $1.6875).

Underlying       :  The Global agrees to provide all eBanker-owned  common stock
Registration        and derivatives on common stock with piggyback  registration
                    rights.

                    Global commits to completing this registration  prior to 180
                    days follow the date of this agreement.

                    Global  commits  to  maintain  registration  of  all  Global
                    eBanker-owned common stock and derivatives on common stock.

Confirmation  of :  Except for the terms above, the terms of the underlying loan
Terms of            agreement,  including  but not  limited to the  default  and
Underlying          remedy provisions,  shall remain unaffected,  unchanged, and
Agreement           unimpaired by reason of this amendment


For and on Behalf of:
Global Med Technologies, Inc.


/s/ Michael Ruxin                           /s/ Gordon Segal
-----------------------                     ----------------------
Michael Ruxin, Director                     Gordon Segal, Director
Date:  April 21, 2000                       Date:  April 21, 2000

/s/ Gerald Willman
------------------------
Gerald Willman, Director
Date:  April 21, 2000


<PAGE>


EXHIBIT 10.3 (continued)


Agreed and accepted by:
eBanker USA.com, Inc.

/s/ Robert Trapp
----------------------
Robert Trapp, Director
Date:  April 25, 2000
Prepared by MERRILL CORPORATION www.edgaradvantage.com




QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.2    
  


      Agreement  


    This agreement was entered into effective December 31, 1999 between David W. Case and Schmitt Industries, Inc. 



    As
David Case was issued 192,500 common stock shares of Schmitt Industries Common Stock on January 5, 1999 by way of an exercise of an existing Non-qualified Stock
Option and, 


    David
W. Case provided to Schmitt Industries, Inc. at that time a note for $282,975 due January 5, 2001 and, 


    The
note received from David W. Case was secured by the shares issued as a result of the exercise of the Non-qualified Stock Options and, 


    Schmitt
Industries, Inc. holds the certificate evidencing those shares until the note agreement is paid in full. 



    Now
the parties wish to terminate the transaction, Case wishes to return the shares to Schmitt and Schmitt will cancel and return the note to Case upon receipt of the Shares. 


    The
Company will cancel the shares and it is agreed the option rights of Case have lapsed. 



	



	
 	

	
 	

 	
 	


	 	 	David W. Case	 	 	 	Robert C. Thompson, CFO/Treasurer

Schmitt Industries, Inc.











QuickLinks


Exhibit 10.2
# C_2008199EN.01000101.xml

| 5.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 199/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 199/1

---

OPINION No 3/2008

OPINION N

of the Court of Auditors of the European Communities on a proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (Euratom, ECSC, EEC) No 549/69 determining the categories of officials and other servants of the European Communities to whom the provisions of Article 12, the second paragraph of Article 13 and Article 14 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the Communities apply

(2008/C 199/01)

THE COURT OF AUDITORS OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Articles 248(4) and 291 thereof,

Having regard to the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities, and in particular Article 16 thereof,

Having regard to the Commission proposal of 23 May 2008 (1),

1

Having regard to the Council's request for an opinion on this proposal, received at the Court on 6 June 2008,

Whereas the purpose of the Commission proposal is that Europol officials should not enjoy immunity from legal proceedings when participating in joint investigation teams created by Member States in the context of criminal investigations falling under the competence of Europol,

HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION:

The proposed amendment, which provides that immunity from legal proceedings shall not apply to Europol staff placed at the disposal of a joint investigation team calls for no comments from the Court.

This opinion was adopted by the Court of Auditors in Luxembourg at its meeting of 17 July 2008.

For the Court of Auditors

Vítor Manuel DA SILVA CALDEIRA

President

---

(1)  COM(2008) 305 final of 23.5.2008.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 61 (Friday, March 30, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 15177]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5904]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 5735]


Culturally Significant Object Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``The World of 1607''

    Summary: On March 7, 2007, notice was published on page 10289 of 
the Federal Register (volume 72, number 44) of determinations made by 
the Department of State pertaining to the exhibit, ``The World of 
1607.'' The referenced notice is corrected as to an additional object 
to be included in the exhibition. 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 object to be included in the exhibition ``The 
World of 1607'', imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within 
the United States, is of cultural significance. The object is imported 
pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I 
also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit object at 
the Jamestown Settlement, Williamsburg, Virginia, from on or about 
April 1, 2007, until on or about July 20, 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 object, contact Wolodymyr Sulzynsky, 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 22, 2007.
C. Miller Crouch,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural 
Affairs, Department of State.
 [FR Doc. E7-5904 Filed 3-29-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
ERNST & YOUNG

					**Ernst & Young LLP			Phone: (312) 879 2000
					Sears Tower			www.ey.com

					233 South Wacker Drive

					Chicago, Illinois 60606 6301

Report on Management's Assertion on Compliance

With Minimum Servicing Standards Set Forth in the

Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers

Report of Independent Accountants

Board of Directors

LaSalle Bank Corporation

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying report titled *Report of**Management*, that except for noncompliance with the minimum servicing standard for escrow funds, ABN AMRO Mortgage Group, Inc. (AAMG, a wholly owned subsidiary of LaSalle Bank Corporation) complied with the minimum servicing standards set forth in the Mortgage Bankers Association of America's *Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers* (USAP) during the year ended December 31, 2002. Management is responsible for AAMG's compliance with those requirements.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertions about AAMG's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about AAMG's compliance with those requirements and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on AAMG's compliance with specified requirements.

In our opinion, management's assertion, that except for noncompliance with the minimum servicing standard for escrow funds, AAMG complied with the aforementioned requirements during the year ended December 31, 2002, is fairly stated, in all material respects. 

This report is intended solely for the information and use of the board of directors, management, and AAMG's private investors and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.

 

Ernst & Young LLP

 

January 20, 2003

 

 

 

 

 

A Member Practice of Ernst & Young Global**
#### Catherine Browne, *Appellant, v.*Julia A. Murdock, *Respondent.*

— Judgment modified as directed in opinion, and affirmed as modified, without costs. Opinion by Brady, J.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED DE CEMBER 3, 2014

NO. 03

- 14

- 00532

- CV

Pat Schumacher, Appellant

v.

The Bank of New York Mellon f/k/a The Bank of New York as Trustee for the Certificate

Holders of the CWMBS Inc. Al ternative Loan Trust 2003

- 8CB, Mortgage Pass

- Through Certificates Series 2003

- 19, Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF TRAVIS COUNTY BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES ROSE AND GO ODWIN DISMISSED ON APPELLANT’S MOTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE ROSE

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l court on March 19, 2014 . Appellant has

filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, and having considered the motion, the C ourt agrees that the

motion should be granted. Therefore, the Court grants the motion and dismisses the appeal

. The

appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 57 (Monday, March 26, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 14087]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5448]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Air Force


Air University Board of Visitors; Notice of Meeting

ACTION: Notice of meeting of Air University Board of Visitors.

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

SUMMARY: The purpose of the meeting is to give the board an opportunity 
to review Air University educational programs and to present to the 
Commander, a report of their findings and recommendations concerning 
these programs. Discussions will include overall university status, 
degree-granting authority, reaffirmation preparations, and 
undergraduate education updates.

DATES: The Air University Board of Visitors will hold an open meeting 
on 16-17 April 2007. The first business session of each meeting will 
begin in the Air Force Personnel Center Conference Room, Randolph Air 
Force Base, Texas.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Dorothy Reed, Chief of Academic 
Affairs, Air University Headquarters, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama 
36112-6335, at (334) 953-5159.

Bao-Anh Trinh,
Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
 [FR Doc. E7-5448 Filed 3-23-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-P
#### GARRET DEVOE, Respondent, *v.*BENJAMIN VAN VRANKEN, Appellant.

*Evidence*— action *to recover damages for a personal injury*— when *the excessive use of intoxicating liquor by the plaintiff, prior to the accident, may be shown in reduction of damages.*

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, entered upon the verdict of a jury, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, made upon the minutes of the justice before whom the action was tried.

The action was brought to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been caused to plaintiff, by his being thrown against the dashboard of a wagon. He was in the wagon with one Deming, who was driving. It was in the night, and the night was dark. The horse ran against a barrier'which .defendant had created in the highway around an excavation

The defendant offered to show that the plaintiff’s habits as to the use of intoxicating liquors had been bad ; that he had been unable from constitutional condition or otherwise, to do a full day’s wort; that the use of intoxicating liquor had rendered him unqualified. This was offered in mitigation of damages. It was objected to by the plaintiff and excluded.

The plaintiff had previously testified that the effect of the acci*202dent had been that he could not do any hard work ; that he could not do a day’s work as he used to. A physician had testified as to the plaintiff’s having internal hernia (claimed to have been caused by the accident), and that such hernia probably created to a laboring man an amount of disability equal to one-half.

The court at General Term said: “We think that in view of this proof previously given by the plaintiff, it was competent to prove that his previous habits had been such that he was unable to do a full day’s work. The excessive use of intoxicating liquor does unfit men for doing work, and the extent of the plaintiff’s pecuniary damage might have been modified in the minds of the jury by the proof excluded.

*Alexander J.*Thomson, for the appellant.

*Yates & Gutter,*for the respondent.

Opinion by-the court.

Present — Learned, P. J., Boardman and Bookes, JL

Judgment reversed, new trial granted; costs to abide event.