alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Japnaam K. CHANDOK; Norma K. Chandok; Davinder S. Chandok, Petitioners, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General,* Respondent.

No. 02-74076.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted May 11, 2005.

Decided Sept. 8, 2005.

Hector M. Roman, Jr., Esq., Roman & Singh, LLP, Jackson Heights, NY, for Petitioners.

*818Regional Counsel, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Deborah N. Misir, Esq., Isaac R. Campbell, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: REINHARDT, NOONAN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 Alberto Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States. Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Norma K. Chandok1 petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We deny the petition.

The BIA’s determination that an alien is not eligible for asylum must be upheld if “supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” *INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 815, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (internal quotation marks omitted). “It can be reversed only if the evidence presented ... was such that a reasonable factfinder would have to conclude that the requisite fear of persecution existed.” *Id.*When an alien seeks to overturn the BIA’s adverse determination, “he must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” *Id.*at 483-84, 112 S.Ct. at 817; *see also Ghaly v. INS,*58 F.3d 1425, 1429 (9th Cir.1995). Where an asylum claim is involved, an alien must show either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution that is “both subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable.” *Fisher v. INS,*79 F.3d 955, 960 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc).

Chandok’s claim to asylum fails because she did not present evidence so compelling that a reasonable factfinder had to decide in her favor. Although the evidence indicated that the authorities were not always sensitive to her and her husband’s religious beliefs, it did not compel a conclusion that those authorities engaged in conduct that can be called persecutory. *See Fisher,*79 F.3d at 961 “(Persecution is an extreme concept....).” Nor did it compel a conclusion that she has a well-founded fear that the authorities will engage in persecution in the future.2

Petition 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.

1

. Her two minor children also petition, but their claims do not differ from hers and what we say as to her claim applies also to theirs.

2

. Because Chandok did not meet the eligibility requirements for asylum, she was not entitled to withholding of removal. *See Ghaly,*58 F.3d at 1429.
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 306 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 11, 2008 

Received 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Permitting the use of the Rotunda of the Capitol for a 

ceremony as part of the commemoration of the days 

of remembrance of victims of the Holocaust. 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), 

3 SECTION 1. USE OF ROTUNDA FOR HOLOCAUST DAYS OF 

4 REMEMBRANCE CEREMONY. 

5 The Rotunda of the Capitol is authorized to be used 

6 on May 1, 2008, for a ceremony as part of the commemo7 ration of the days of remembrance of victims of the 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

HCON 306 RDS 

1 Holocaust. Physical preparations for the ceremony shall 

2 be carried out in accordance with such conditions as the 

3 Architect of the Capitol may prescribe. 

Passed the House of Representatives March 10, 

2008. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1995             MAR-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995             SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                         132,111                 132,111
<SECURITIES>                                     8,467                   8,467
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,574,564               2,574,564
<ALLOWANCES>                                    30,360                  30,360
<INVENTORY>                                  3,737,794               3,737,794
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,006,631               7,006,631
<PP&E>                                       2,780,652               2,780,652
<DEPRECIATION>                                 736,972                 736,972
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,759,009              12,759,009
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,157,939               4,157,939
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<COMMON>                                        32,456                  32,456
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,284,095               7,284,095
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,759,009              12,759,009
<SALES>                                      4,920,168               9,957,529
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,920,168               9,957,529
<CGS>                                        4,139,429               8,547,608
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,139,429               8,547,608
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               881,467               1,838,830
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             130,698                 258,397
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (136,334)               (458,180)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (136,334)               (458,180)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (136,334)               (458,180)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.04)                   (.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.04)                   (.14)
        

</TABLE>
Johnson, Dastina - Boise, ID

From: Johnson, Dastina - Boise, ID

Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 2:35 PM

To: Paul, Pat - Richmond, VA; ug-ID-nrcs

Subject: Introduction to 'eNewsbytes'

Page 1 of 1

2/9/2007

There is a new tool available for sharing information statewide!

To communicate in a more timely and effective manner between Idaho NRCS employees 

and partners, you will now receive “eNewsbytes” in lieu of a quarterly newsletter. 

“eNewsbytes” are periodic news reports that will usually feature one item on a need-toknow basis. “eNewsbytes” will provide newsworthy information about innovative 

projects, conservation successes, outreach and partnership activities and events 

throughout Idaho. 

I am requesting your participation in order to make this new format successful. If you 

have a story (or story idea) and photos that you would like to share, please submit 

them to me. Abridged entries are welcomed--hence the word ‘byte’. Future 

‘eNewsbytes’ will be archived under News of the Idaho website for viewing anytime. 

Your comments and suggestions on this approach are welcome. Please feel free to 

contact me anytime. Your first “eNewsbyte” will arrive in the near future.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 193 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 193

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 25, 2007

         Received and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
 Recognizing all hunters across the United States for their continued 
                         commitment to safety.

Whereas in 2006 there were over 16,000,000 hunters in the United States of which 
        only .0013 percent incurred an injury during the past hunting season;
Whereas in 2006 this injury rate was lower than many other forms of recreation;
Whereas there are 70,000 hunter education instructors teaching hunter safety, 
        ethics, and conservation to approximately 750,000 students successfully 
        each year;
Whereas State fish and game agencies began offering hunter safety programs in 
        1949, and since then, more than 35,000,000 people have been certified;
Whereas much of the success of hunter safety can be contributed to hunter 
        education training and the role of responsible hunters in the field;
Whereas Congress commends Pennsylvania hunters for setting a new State safety 
        record in 2006;
Whereas hunters continue year after year to improve their safety record; and
Whereas hunters are the vital link in preserving and maintaining the great 
        natural resources in the United States, including wild places: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That the Congress--
            (1) recognizes all hunters across the United States for 
        their continued commitment to safety; and
            (2) directs the Secretary of the Senate to transmit a copy 
        of this resolution to the Pennsylvania State Game Commissioner 
        and the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 24, 2007.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
(Reap. Dec. 9575)

#### Brauner & Company *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 839625; 891910; 803033.

(Decided December 30, 1959)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

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

Lawrence, Judge:

When the appeals for a reappraisement enumerated in the schedule, attached to and made part of this decision, were called for hearing, there was no appearance on behalf of plaintiff.

An examination of the official records discloses no reason for disturbing the presumptively correct value for the merchandise found by the appraiser.

I, therefore, find and hold the proper dutiable value of the merchandise covered by said appeals to be the value found by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Notice: This opin ion is subject to form al revision before publication in the Atl antic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal

errors so that correc tions m ay be made before the boun d volum es go to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF AP P EALS

No. 1 4- BG- 10 00

IN RE: ROBER T W ILKEY

Res po nd en t.

Ba r Reg is tra tio n No. 9 75 43 2 BDN: 1 79 -1 4

BEFORE: Gli ck m an , Ass oc ia te Ju dg e, an d Neb ek er an d R ui z, Sen io r Ju dg es

.

ORDER (FILED - Nov em

be r 26 , 20 14 )

On co ns id erat io n of th e cert ifi ed or de r su sp endin g re spon de nt fr om the pr act ic e of la w in th e st at e of Pen ns y lv an ia fo r a to ta l of 30 m on th s, th is co ur t’s Sep te m be r 24

, 20 14

, or de r di rect in g res po nd en t to sh ow cau se why t h e f u n ct io na ll y eq ui va le nt
di sc ip li ne in th e fo rm of a su sp e ns io n fo r a pe rio d of 30 m on th s wit h hi s rei ns ta te m en t co nd it io ne d up on a sh owi ng of fit ne ss sh ou ld no t be im po se d, an d th e

st at em en t of Bar Co u n se l reg ard in g reci pr oc al di sc ip li ne , an d it ap pe ari ng th at

res po nd en t ha s fai le d to fil e a res po ns e to th is co ur t’s or de r to sh ow cau se bu t di d fil e a ti m el y affi da vi t as req ui red by D .C. Bar R . XI, §1 4 (g ), it is

ORDERED th at Ro be rt W il ke y is he reb y su sp en de d from th e p ract ic e o f la w in th e Dis tri ct of Co lu m

bi a fo r a pe rio d of 30 m on th s, nu nc pr o tu nc to Sep te m be r 24

, 21 04 . Rein st at em en t is co nt in ge nt up on a sh owi ng of fit ne ss

. Se e In re S ib le

y , 99 0
A.2d 48 3 (D.C. 20 10 ); In re Ful le r , 93 0 A.2d 19 4, 19 8 (D.C. 20 07 ); In re Co le man , 91 9 A.2 d 1 13 5, 1 13 7 n .4 (D.C. 2 00 7)

.

PER CURIAM
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 236 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Whereas the Republic of San Marino is the oldest republic in 

the world; 

Whereas the Republic of San Marino was founded by those 

fleeing the religious persecution of the Roman Empire, 

and has adhered to the principles of tolerance and individual liberty throughout its history; 
2 

•HCON 236 EH 

Whereas the United States and the Republic of San Marino 

have long held close ties based on common interests and 

common values; 

Whereas the special bond between the Republic of San 

Marino and the United States was first expressed nearly 

a century and a half ago in an exchange of letters between President Abraham Lincoln and the Captains Regent of San Marino; 

Whereas President Lincoln expressed in his letter his deep respect for the Republic of San Marino as ‘‘one of the most 

honored in all of history’’ and took encouragement from 

its example that a ‘‘government founded on republican 

principles is capable of being so administered as to be secure and enduring’’; 

Whereas the Republic of San Marino has been a steadfast 

ally of the United States in many international organizations, such as the United Nations and the International 

Monetary Fund; 

Whereas the Republic of San Marino has been a close collaborator on a number of key economic issues, such as 

the protection of intellectual property; 

Whereas the Republic of San Marino has been a close collaborator in the fight against terrorism, including efforts 

to combat international terrorist financing; 

Whereas through its chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, the Republic of San 

Marino has worked to promote inter-religious and intercultural dialogue; 

Whereas earlier this year, the United States and the Republic 

of San Marino upgraded their diplomatic relations to am-
3 

•HCON 236 EH 

bassador-level, and exchanged the first bilateral Ambassadors in our history; 

Whereas Paolo Rondelli, the first Ambassador Extraordinary 

and Plenipotentiary of the Republic of San Marino to the 

United States, presented his credentials to President 

Bush at a ceremony at the White House on July 25, 

2007; and 

Whereas the Honorable Ronald P. Spogli presented credentials to the Captains Regent (co-Heads of State) in a 

ceremony in San Marino’s Palazzo Publico on March 8, 

2007: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That Congress— 

3 (1) recognizes the close relationship between the 

4 United States and the Republic of San Marino; 

5 (2) expresses its deep gratitude to the Republic 

6 of San Marino for its close collaboration and support 

7 in issues of critical importance to our economic and 

8 national security interests; and 
4 

•HCON 236 EH 

1 (3) commemorates the first bilateral exchange 

2 of Ambassadors in the history of our long relation3 ship. 

Passed the House of Representatives November 7, 

2007. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 236 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

United States and the Republic of San Marino. 

Recognizing the close relationship between the
# C_2017144EN.01000401.xml

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle — Luxembourg) — ArcelorMittal Rodange and Schifflange SA v State of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-321/15) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Scheme for greenhouse gas emissions allowance trading in the European Union - Directive 2003/87/EC - Article 3(a) - Articles 11 and 12 - Cessation of activities of an installation - Surrender of unused allowances - Period from and including 2008 to 2012 - No compensation - Broad logic of the greenhouse gas emissions allowance trading scheme))

(2017/C 144/04)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Cour constitutionnelle

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ArcelorMittal Rodange and Schifflange SA

Applicant:

Defendant: State of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 219/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which allows the competent authority to require the surrender, without full or partial compensation, of unused allowances which have been improperly issued to an operator, as a result of the failure by the latter to comply with the obligation to inform the competent authority in due time of the cessation of the operation of an installation.

The allowances issued after an operator has ceased the activities performed in the installation to which those allowances relate, without informing the competent authority beforehand, cannot be classified as emissions ‘allowances’ within the meaning of Article 3(a) of Directive 2003/87, as amended by Regulation No 219/2009.

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.

1

---
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.35


                               INTEROFFICE
                               COMMUNICATION       MARY ANN CHAMPLIN
                                                   Aetna Human Resources, RC3A
                                                   (860) 273-8371
                                                   Fax:  (860) 560-8721







To       Frederick C. Copeland, Jr.

Date     July 22, 1996

Subject  EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


I am pleased to inform you that effective July 19, 1996, Aetna Inc. has assumed
all of the obligations of Aetna Services, Inc. (formerly Aetna Life and Casualty
Company) under your Employment Agreement with Aetna Services, Inc. All
references to the "Company" in your Employment Agreement will hereinafter be
deemed to mean both Aetna Services, Inc. and Aetna Inc. Among other things, this
means that the Change in Control provisions of your Employment Agreement would
be triggered by a change in control of either Aetna Services, Inc. or Aetna Inc.

By way of background, Aetna Inc. became the ultimate parent within the Aetna
holding company system as a result of the merger with U.S. Healthcare. Your
Employment Agreement was entered into with Aetna Services, Inc., which is now a
direct subsidiary of Aetna Inc. We felt it would be appropriate for the new
ultimate parent, Aetna Inc., to assume these obligations to place you on an
equivalent footing post-merger.

The assumption of your Employment Agreement is self-executing. You do not need
to take any action in response to this letter. If you have any questions or
concerns, please let me know.


                                            /s/ Mary Ann Champlin
#### Deon SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sean O’KEEFE, Administrator, Nasa, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 05-10549

Non-Argument Calendar.

D.C. Docket No. 03-03021-CV-S-NE.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Sept. 6, 2005.

John R. Benn, Sheffield, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Jenny Lynn Smith, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Birmingham, AL, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before ANDERSON, DUBINA and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff-Appellant Deon Smith, a Caucasian male over age 60, appeals the dis*268trict court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (“NASA”). Smith filed a discrimination action against NASA under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the Age Discrimination Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 626, alleging race, age, gender, and national origin discrimination in his non-selection for a supervisory position. The parties agreed that Smith established a prima facie case of discrimination, and that NASA put forth a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its selection. The district court determined that Smith failed to establish that this reason was a pretext for discrimination and, therefore, granted summary judgment. Smith now appeals.

We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. *Wilson v. B/E Aerospace, Inc.,*376 F.3d 1079, 1085 (11th Cir.2004); *Green v. Union Foundry Co.,*281 F.3d 1229, 1233 (11th Cir.2002).

Upon our review of the record, we affirm the grant of summary judgment for the reasons set forth in the district court’s thorough opinion dated December 28, 2004.

AFFIRMED.
No. 54285.

#### H. H. Elder & Co. *v.*United States,

protest 118113-K (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

This case is before the court on the merits, a motion to dismiss made on the part of the Government having been denied *(H. H. Elder & Co.*v. *United States,*20 Cust. Ct. 61, C. D. 1084). In denying the motion, it was held that the failure of a liquidator to follow certificates of analyses made *446by the Federal-State Seed Laboratory constituted “clerical error” wxtmn the meaning of that term as used in section 514, Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. §1514). It being conceded by counsel for the Government that the entry should have been liquidated in accordance with the percentages of the various types of seeds in the shipment, as shown by the certificates of the Federal-State Seed Laboratory (United States Department of Agriculture), attached to the consular invoices as collective exhibit 2, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.