alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

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

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANTONIO CANECES-GARCIA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-73238

Agency No. A098-806-605

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 29, 2010** 

Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

Antonio Caneces-Garcia, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming an

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal

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

FILED

JUL 16 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-73238

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey,

512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to

the BIA’s determination of the governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v.

Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review factual findings for

substantial evidence. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.

2006). We deny the petition for review.

We reject petitioner’s claim that he is eligible for withholding of removal

based upon an imputed anti-gang political opinion or his membership in a

particular social group. See Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 854-56 (9th Cir.

2009); Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 746-47 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding

that a “general aversion to gangs does not constitute a political opinion”);

Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[t]he Real ID Act

requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum

applicant’s persecution”). Accordingly, because petitioner failed to demonstrate

that he was persecuted or fears persecution on account of a protected ground, we

deny the petition as to his withholding of removal claim. See Barrios, 581 F.3d at

856.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that petitioner failed to

demonstrate it is more likely than not he would be tortured by, or at the instigation
3 08-73238

of, or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official if returned to

Guatemala, and therefore we deny the petition as to petitioner’s CAT claim. See

Santos-Lemus, 542 F.3d at 747-48.

Finally, petitioner’s contention that the BIA failed to articulate its reasons

for denying relief is not supported by the record. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241,

1246 (9th Cir. 2000).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### F. W. Woolworth Co. *v.*United States

*No. 8033.*

Entered at New York, N. Y,

Entry No. 725695.

(Decided August 7, 1951)

*Sharretts, Hillis & Paley (Howard, G. Carter*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*David N. Hdelstein,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Johnson, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between counsel for the plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, that the market value or the price, at the time of exportation to- the United States of the merchandise covered by the appeals to reappraisement enumerated above, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary- course of trade, for exportation to the United States, plus the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed, ready for shipment to the United States, was the entered value and that such or similar merchandise was not offered for sale or sold in the country of exportation for home comsumption [sic].

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED, that these appeals to reap-praisement be submitted on this stipulation.

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 value was the entered value.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
(Reap. Dec. 9013)

Entry *No.*15875.

#### Tradewinds, Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided October 22, 1957)

*Lawrence & Tuttle (George R. Tuttle*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General *(Samuel D. Spector, Joseph E. Weil,*and *Daniel I. Auster,*trial attorneys), for the defendant.

Donlon, Judge:

The merchandise and evidence in this case do not differ materially from the merchandise and evidence in consolidated appeals 247957-A, etc., decided concurrently herewith. *B. A. McKenzie & Co., Inc.*v. *United States,*39 Cust. Ct. 680, Reap. Dec. 9012. Indeed, the differences are that the rifles here are two only of the three models in the concurrent appeals, and that these were imported at Chicago, not Tacoma.

On the opinion in appeals 247957-A, etc., I find as facts:

1. That the merchandise in this appeal consists of Husqvarna rifles, models 644 and 647, exported from Sweden on May 16, 1951.

*6872. That, at the time of exportation, merchandise such as these rifles was not freely offered in Sweden for sale to all purchasers for home consumption or export.

3. That, at the time of exportation, such or similar merchandise was not freely offered in the United States for sale to all purchasers, packed, ready for delivery.

4. That a rifle, similar to Husqvarna rifles, models 644 and 647, was not, at the time of exportation, freely offered in Sweden for sale to all purchasers for home consumption or export.

I conclude as a matter of law:

1. That, at the time of exportation, there was no foreign, export, or United States value for Husqvarna rifles, models 644 and 647, as value is defined in section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.

2. That plaintiff has failed to overcome the presumptively correct appraised value of Husqvarna rifles, models 644 and 647, and that the values thereof are those returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
# C_2016270EN.01001503.xml

| 25.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/15

---

Appeal brought on 10 November 2015 by Monster Energy Company against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2015 in Case T-666/14: Monster Energy v EUIPO

(Case C-603/15 P)

(2016/C 270/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Monster Energy Company (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings:

By order of 4 May 2016 the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.

---