alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Arvindjit Kaur BALAGGAN; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-71708.

Agency Nos. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 12, 2005.*

Decided Sept. 15, 2005.

Hector M. Roman, Jackson Heights, NY, for Petitioners.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before REINHARDT, RYMER, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM**

Arvindjit Kaur Balaggan, her husband Gurmit Singh Balaggan, and their son Prabhjot Singh Balaggan, natives and citizens of India, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. *836*See Singh v. INS,*213 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir.2000). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying the petitioners’ motion to reopen filed more than ninety days after the BIA’s final order of removal, because the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish changed circumstances in India. *See 8*C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii) (stating that the ninety-day time limitation for filing a motion to reopen shall not apply to asylum applications based on changed circumstances); *Konstantinova v. INS,*195 F.3d 528, 530 (9th Cir.1999) (upholding denial of motion to reopen where petitioner’s evidence of changed circumstances was too general in nature to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution).

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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Case No. 15,235.

#### UNITED STATES v. GORHAM.

[6 Blatchf. 530.] 1

Circuit Court, N. D. New York.

Aug. 11, 1869.

Clerk op Court—Expenses op Ofpioe.

Under the act of February 26, 1853 (10 Stat. 166), moneys paid by the clerk of a district court, during his clerkship, for expenses incurred by him, as clerk, for board and lodging at hotels, while attending, as clerk, at terms of the court held away from the place where he is required to keep his office, are not allowable to him as “necessary expenses of his office.”

This suit was commenced in the district court [case unreportedj, and was removed into this court under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1821 (3 Stat. 643), on the ground that the judge of that court was so related to or connected with the defendant, as to make-it improper for him to sit on the trial of the suit. The defendant [George Gorham] was the clerk of the district court, from .Tune, 1861, to Tanuary, 1867. He was required to reside at Buffalo and keep his office there. The terms of the court were held at Albany, Utica, Auburn, Rochester, and Buffalo, and the clerk was required to attend at those terms. During his clerkship, the defendant paid out $577.25, for expenses incurred by him as such clerk, for board and lodging at hotels, while attending at terms of the court held away from Buffalo. In accounting to the government for the moneys received by him, as clerk, in excess of his maximum allowance, he withheld the $577.25. The government in adjusting his account for services, as clerk, withheld $265.61 due to him for such services, and claimed that the defendant as clerk, still owed to it $311.64. Under the act of January 25, 1828 (4 Stat. 246), the government withheld from the defendant the sum of $311.64, due to him for services rendered to the government as a United States commissioner. This suit was brought at the request of the defendant, made before he knew of the withholding by the government of the $311.64. The object of the suit was to recover the $311.64 claimed by the government to be due from the defendant, as clerk, and to determine the question, whether the defendant, as clerk, was entitled to be allowed that amount, so paid by him for board and lodging, as being “necessary expenses- of his office,” within the meaning of the act of February 26, 1853 (10 Stat. 166). The case was tried before the court, without a jury.

William Dorshemer. U. S. Dist. Atty.

George Gorham, in pro. per.

1

 [Reported by Hon. Samuel Btatchford. District Judge, and here reprinted by permission.]

THE COURT

(NELSON, Circuit Justice)

held, that the expenses in question were not allowable, and directed a judgment to be entered for the plaintiffs.
No. 54902.

#### Fuchs Shoe Corp. *v.*United States,

protests 163831-K and 164186-K (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of sisal handbags similar *in*all material respects' *326to those the subject of *United States*v. *Goldberg & Seltzer, Inc.*(36 C. C. P. A. 64, C. A. D. 399), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
# C_2020247EN.01000801.xml

| 27.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 247/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/8

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 June 2020 — Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor v Commission

(Case T-564/15 RENV) (1)

(Financial assistance in the field of Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) - Transport sector for the period 2014-2020 - Calls for proposals - Decision establishing the list of proposals selected - Rejection of the proposal - Manifest errors of assessment - Equal treatment - Obligation to state reasons)

(2020/C 247/12)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: Y. de Vries and J. de Kok, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Kalėda and J. Samnadda, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2015) 5274 final of 31 July 2015 establishing the list of proposals selected for receiving EU financial assistance in the field of Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) — Transport sector, following the calls for proposals launched on 11 September 2014 based on the Multi-Annual Work Programme.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay its own costs as well as those incurred by Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor BV relating to the appeal proceedings before the Court of Justice, in Case C-635/16 P, and relating to the initial proceedings before the General Court, in Case T-564/15; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay its own costs as well as those incurred by Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor BV relating to the appeal proceedings before the Court of Justice, in Case C-635/16 P, and relating to the initial proceedings before the General Court, in Case T-564/15;

| 3. | Orders Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor to pay the costs relating to the proceedings referred back to the General Court, in Case T-564/15 RENV. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor to pay the costs relating to the proceedings referred back to the General Court, in Case T-564/15 RENV.

---

(1)  OJ C 398, 30.11.2015.

---
(logo) Rialto CAPITAL

 

 

**2016 Annual Statement ofServicer Compliance (Item 1123)**

 

 

Pooling and Servicing Agreement(the “Pooling and Servicing Agreement”) dated as of December 1,2015 by and among Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc., as Depositor, Midland LoanServices, A Division of PNC Bank, National Association as Master Servicer,Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC as Special Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, NationalAssociation as Trustee, Certificate Administrator, Certificate Registrar,Authenticating Agent and Custodian and Situs Holdings, LLC as Trust Advisorrelating to the Morgan Stanley Capital I Trust 2015-UBS8, Commercial MortgagePass-through Certificates, Series 2015-UBS8 **(MCSI 2015-UBS8)**

 

 

The undersigned, a dulyauthorized officer of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as special servicer (the“Special Servicer”) herein certifies to the following:

 

1.            All servicing activities and performance of such servicing activities under thePooling and Servicing Agreement are performed on behalf of the SpecialServicer.

 

2.            A review of the servicing activities and performance by the Special Servicer forthe period of January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 (the “ReportingPeriod”) in accordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has beenconducted under my supervision.

 

3.            To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer hasfulfilled all of its obligations under the terms of the Pooling and ServicingAgreement, in all material respects for the Reporting Period and if there hasbeen a failure to fulfill any such obligations in any material respect, eachfailure and the nature and status thereof has been specifically identifiedherein.

 

 

Certified by: /s/AdamSinger                                  Date: March 1, 2017

                    Adam Singer, Managing Director
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.4

                     AMENDMENT TO THE ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT
                              Dated April 19, 1999


BETWEEN: CYBEROAD GAMING CORPORATION, a St. Kitts corporation ("CGC") and

BETWEEN: CYBEROAD.COM (ISLE OF MAN) LIMITED, an Isle of Man corporation,
("Cyberoad 10M");

WHEREAS this Amendment acknowledges that:

     a)   the Assignment Agreement amending the Operating and Revenue Sharing
          Agreement for Internet Wagering Systems Ltd., executed by the parties
          hereto, is to be made effective as of May 1, 1999; and

     b)   the total consideration, as paid in full, is U.S. $10,000.00, and
          other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby
          acknowledged.

EXECUTION IN COUNTERPART

This instrument may be signed in counterpart, in as many counterparts as may be
necessary, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, and each of which
shall constitute one and the same instrument, and shall bear the date first
written above.

ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED TO ON THE 18th DAY OF OCTOBER, 1999 BY:

CYBEROAD GAMING CORPORATION CYBEROAD.COM (ISLE OF MAN) LIMITED


/s/ LAWRENCE COFIELD,                    /s/ JOHN COFFEY,
--------------------------               --------------------------
    Lawrence Cofield,                        John Coffey,
    Director                                 Director
No. 65713.

#### John J. Coates Co. *v.*United States,

protest 60/25895 (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

Prom a review of the record in this case, the court found nothing tending in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the classification by the collector. The protest was, therefore, overruled.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.2

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated February 2,
2000 (relating to the consolidated financial statements of DaimlerChrysler
Corporation not presented separately herein), included as Exhibit 10.3 of the
Annual Report on Form 20-F of DaimlerChrysler AG for the year ended December 31,
1999, in the following Registration Statements:

                  REGISTRATION
FORM              STATEMENT NO.             ISSUER

F-3               333-11306                 DaimlerChrysler North America
                                            Holding Corporation

S-8               333-5074                  DaimlerChrysler AG

S-8               333-7082                  DaimlerChrysler AG

S-8               333-8998                  DaimlerChrysler AG

S-3               33-71169                  Chrysler Financial Company L.L.C.

S-3               333-92583                 Chrysler Financial Company L.L.C.



Deloitte & Touche LLP

Detroit, Michigan
February 23, 2000
# C_2017144EN.01006105.xml

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/61

---

Order of the General Court of 15 March 2017 — EFB v Commission

(Case T-174/15) (1)

1

(2017/C 144/90)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 205, 22.6.2015.

1

---
No. 45194.

#### Protest 984884-G of Harrison Corporation.

C. D. 401. Motion of Government for rehearing granted.
No. 53766.

protest 113547-K (New York).

#### Baxter Importers, Ltd. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), thé claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 276 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 276

   Expressing the sense of Congress regarding Jordanian institutions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 19, 2007

 Mr. Andrews submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
   Expressing the sense of Congress regarding Jordanian institutions.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of Congress that--
            (1) the Secretary of Education should use any available 
        resources of the Department of Education and other agencies of 
        the Executive Branch to support and encourage the formation of 
        a consortia between one or more prominent United States 
        institutions of higher education and a Jordanian institution 
        for the establishment of joint undergraduate and graduate 
        programs of education; and
            (2) the Secretary of Education should assist any such 
        consortium in overcoming any legal, diplomatic, or 
        administrative obstacles to the establishment of such programs.
                                 <all>
```
Case No. 14,604.

#### UNITED STATES v. BLACKLOCK.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 166.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

April Term, 1819.

United States — Right to Summary Judgment— Receivers of Public Mosey.

The right of the United States to summary judgment, under the act of congress of the 3d of March, 1797, c. 74, § 3 [1 Story’s Laws, 464; 1 Slat. 514, c. 20], “to provide more effectually for the settlement of accounts between the United States and receivers of public money,” does not extend to suits brought by the United States as indorsees of promissory notes.

Assumpsit by the United States against the defendant as indorser of a promissory noté.

Mr. Jones, for the United States,

claimed' a summary judgment, at the return term, upon motion, according to the 3d section of the act of congress of the 3d of March, 1797 (1 Stat. 512), to provide more effectually for the settlement of accounts between the United States and receivers of public money.

Mr. Taylor, for defendant,

objected that the act relates only to such receivers of public money as are accountable agents, such as have been intrusted with public money to account therefor, whose accounts are to be adjusted at the treasury of the United States, who may be entitled to commissions, and whose commissions may be forfeited. The third section refers only to such receivers of public money as are designated by the first section.

And

THE COURT

(THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, absent),

being of that opinion, overruled the motion.
(Reap. Dec. 9382)

#### Finwood Industries, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 799062.

(Decided April 7, 1959)

*Siegel, Manrlell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

The above-enumerated appeal for reappraisement relates to plywood, exported from Finland in the year 1956, and was submitted for decision upon stipulation of counsel for the parties limited to the items marked with the letter “A” and checked HG by Examiner H. H. Geller on the invoice.

On the agreed facts, I find foreign value, as defined in section 402 (c), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, to be the proper basis for determination of the value of said items of merchandise, and that such value, in each instance, was the appraised unit value, less 4 per centum, packed.

In all other respects and as to all other merchandise the said appeal for reappraisement is dismissed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
#### James McCutcheon & Co. et al. *v.*United States

No. 6449.

Entry No. 739691, etc.

Invoices dated Walsall, England, January 12, 1942, etc.

Certified January 14, 1942, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., February 24, 1942, etc.

(Decided October 17, 1946)

*Benjamin A. Levelt*for the plaintiffs.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule Ar hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importers on entry because of advances by the appraisers in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
#### Esli Abraham DELEON-AGUILAR, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-70943.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 12, 2005.*

Decided Sept. 19, 2005.

*876Robert L. Lewis, Law Office of Robert L. Lewis, Oakland, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Norah Ascoli Schwarz, Esq., Shelley R. Goad, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: REINHARDT, RYMER, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable *876for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Esli Abraham Deleon-Aguilar, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ summary affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence and may reverse only if the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. *Rostomian v. INS,*210 F.3d 1088, 1089 (9th Cir.2000). We deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s decision that petitioner failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. Any mistreatment that petitioner experienced fails to rise to the level of persecution, and any fear of future persecution is not objectively reasonable. *See Nagoulko v. INS,*333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir.2003) (finding no persecution where alien was teased, bothered, discriminated against and harassed because of her Pentecostal religious beliefs); *see also Kotasz v. INS,*31 F.3d 847, 854 (9th Cir.1994) (holding alien failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution because she only showed discrimination and not persecution); *Rostomian,*210 F.3d at 1089 (denying asylum because general civil strife was insufficient to establish a well-founded fear of persecution). Petitioner’s asylum claim accordingly fails.

Because petitioner failed to demonstrate that he was eligible for asylum, it follows that he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. *See*
      *877
      *Singh-Kaur v. INS,*183 F.3d 1147, 1149 (9th Cir.1999).

Petitioner failed to raise his CAT claim in his opening brief, and therefore waived this claim. *See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,*94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996).

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.
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 172 (Thursday, September 5, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54644-54645]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21636]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9900-72-Region3]

2013 Fall Joint Meeting of the Ozone Transport Commission and the 
Mid-Atlantic Northeast Visibility Union

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Environmental Protection Agency is 
announcing the joint 2013 Fall Meeting

[[Page 54645]]

of the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) and the Mid-Atlantic Northeast 
Visibility Union (MANE-VU). The meeting agenda will include topics 
regarding reducing ground-level ozone precursors and matters relative 
to Regional Haze and visibility improvement in Federal Class I areas in 
a multi-pollutant context.

DATES: The meeting will be held on November 14, 2013 starting at 9:15 
a.m. and ending at 4:00 p.m.
    Location: The Embassy Suites, 900 10th Street NW., Washington, DC 
20001; (202) 719-1424.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For documents and press inquiries 
contact: Ozone Transport Commission, 444 North Capitol Street NW., 
Suite 322, Washington, DC 20001; (202) 508-3840; email: 
ozone@otcair.org; Web site: http://www.otcair.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 contain 
at Section 184 provisions for the Control of Interstate Ozone Air 
Pollution. Section 184(a) establishes an Ozone Transport Region (OTR) 
comprised of the States of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, 
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode 
Island, Vermont, parts of Virginia and the District of Columbia. The 
purpose of the OTC is to deal with ground-level ozone formation, 
transport, and control within the OTR.
    The Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) was formed in 
2001, in response to EPA's issuance of the Regional Haze rule. MANE-
VU's members include: Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, 
Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, 
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, the Penobscot Indian Nation, the 
St. Regis Mohawk Tribe along with EPA and Federal Land Managers.
    Type of Meeting: Open.
    Agenda: Copies of the final agenda will be available from the OTC 
office (202) 508-3840; by email: ozone@otcair.org or via the OTC Web 
site at http://www.otcair.org.

    Dated: August 22, 2013.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2013-21636 Filed 9-4-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
No. 49877.

#### Protests 54180-K, etc., of La Manna, Azema & Farnan, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of peeled grapes in cans the same as that passed upon in *United States*v. *Meyer & Lange*(32 C. C. P. A. 1, C. A. D. 277). In accordance therewith this claim was sustained.