alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JING LI; DIANBO ZHOU,

Petitioners,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 15

- 72799 Agency Nos. A206

- 038

- 593

A206

- 038

- 594

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted May 17, 2019 Seattle, Washington
Before: HAWKINS and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and BURY, ** District Judge. An immigration judge (“IJ”) ordered Jing Li and Dianbo Zhou, natives and citizens of China, removed and rejected Li’s application for asylum and withholding
of removal . After the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissed the petitioners’ appeal, they filed this petition for review. We have jurisdiction under 8

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The Honorable David C. Bury, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

JUN 7 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 15

- 72799

U.S.C. § 1252, and reviewing the factual findings underlying the agency’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal for s ubstantial evidence, Madrigal v. Holder , 716 F.3d 499, 503 (9th Cir. 2013) , we deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Li failed to
demonstrate a well

- founded fear of persecution under either a pattern or practice or disfavored group analysis

. See Halim v. Holder , 590 F.3d 971, 977

– 79 (9th Cir. 2009). Contrary to Li’s contention, the record does not suggest that the agency failed to consider her arguments or the evidence presented. Indeed, the BIA expla ined that Li failed to make the requisite showing of a well

- founded fear even considering her testimony that she wishes to serve as a church leader

. The BIA also “agreed” with the IJ’s analysis regarding the level of persecution of Christians, who are not affiliated with the government sanctioned church . The IJ’s analysis included an express recognition that the number of reported incidents of persecution “represents a floor, not a ceiling of the actual total number.” See Del Cid Marroquin v. Lynch , 823 F.3d 933, 936

– 37 (9th Cir. 2016) (court may look to IJ’s decision “as a guide to what lay behind the BIA’s conclusion” if the BIA expresses its agreement with the IJ’s reasoning (citation omitted) ). Li has failed to identify record evidence that compels a conclusion contrary to that of the agency. See Halim , 590 F.3d at 977

– 79.3 15

- 72799

Because substantial evidence supports the denial of asylum, substantial evidence necessarily supports the agency’s denial of withholding of removal as well. See Mansour v. Ashcroft , 390 F.3d 667, 673 (9th Cir. 2004) (applicant who fails to
show well

- found ed fear of future persecution under asylum standard “necessarily fails to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
# C_2013123EN.01001101.xml

| 27.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 123/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 123/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 31 January 2013 — Posteshop SpA — Divisione Franchising Kipoint v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

(Case C-52/13)

2013/C 123/16

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Posteshop SpA — Divisione Franchising Kipoint

Applicant:

Defendants: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

Defendants:

Question referred

Question referred

With regard to the protection to be afforded to traders, is Directive 2006/114/EC (1) to be interpreted as referring to advertising that is misleading and at the same time based on unlawful comparison, or to two separate offences, each of which may be relevant in its own right, namely misleading advertising and unlawful comparative advertising?

1

---

(1)  Directive 2006/114/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 concerning misleading and comparative advertising (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 21.

1

---
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Broadwind Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, J. Cameron Drecoll,Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thatto my knowledge:

 

(1)                                  The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

 

(2)                                  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ J. Cameron Drecoll  |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| J. Cameron Drecoll      |
| Chief Executive Officer |
|                    |
|                    |
| Date: May 7, 2010  |

 

----
```

[House Report 111-421]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

111th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     111-421

======================================================================

 
    PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE BILL (H.R. 2701) TO 
  AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010 FOR INTELLIGENCE AND 
 INTELLIGENCE-RELATED ACTIVITIES OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, THE 
   COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT, AND THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY 
        RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY SYSTEM, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                _______
                                

 February 25, 2010.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______
                                

   Mr. Cardoza, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                      [To accompany H. Res. 1113]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 1113, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to 
the House with the recommendation that the resolution be 
adopted.

                SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

    The resolution provides for further consideration of H.R. 
2701, the ``Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2010.'' The resolution provides that amendment number 1 printed 
in House Report 111-419 shall be modified by striking the 
matter proposed to be inserted as section 506.

                                  

```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 145 (Tuesday, July 29, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 40518]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-19872]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. EL97-43-000]


QST Energy Trading, Inc. v. Central Illinois Public Service 
Company and Union Electric Company; Notice of Filing

July 23, 1997.
    Take notice that on June 25, 1997, pursuant to Section 306 of the 
Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 825e, and Rule 206 of the Rules of 
Practice and Procedure of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
(Commission), 18 CFR 385.206, QST Energy Trading, Inc. (QST) tendered 
for filing a Verified Complaint, Request for Interim Relief and Request 
for Shortened Answer Period against Central Illinois Public Service 
Company (CIPS) and Union Electric Company (UE). QST alleges that CIPS 
and UE, which is operating CIPS' transmission system, have refused to 
provide QST with monthly firm transmission service to deliver firm 
energy and capacity which is being sold by CIPS. This Complaint 
concerns a series of acts which are alleged to be anti-competitive: 
CIPS' refusal to provide QST with firm transmission service after CIPS 
agreed to make a firm power sale; CIPS' and UE's refusal to provide 
transmission service which MAIN indicated was available; the refusal by 
CIPS and UE to provide a copy of the study done which is allegedly the 
basis for refusing to provide transmission service; and UE's 
anticompetitive use of CIPS' transmission system to deny available 
service.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before August 8, 1997. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not service to make 
protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a 
party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this application are 
on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. 
Answers to the complaint shall be due on or before August 8, 1997.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-19872 Filed 7-28-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
No. 54393.

#### Charlotte Blodget et al. *v.*United States,

protests 117940-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
# C_2015236EN.01000202.xml

| 20.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 236/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 236/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Industrial Tribunal (Northern Ireland) — United Kingdom) — Valerie Lyttle and Others v Bluebird UK Bidco 2 Limited

(Case C-182/13) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Collective redundancies - Directive 98/59/EC - Article 1(1)(a) - Meaning of ‘establishment’ - Method of calculating the number of workers made redundant))

(2015/C 236/03)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

Industrial Tribunal (Northern Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimants: Valerie Lyttle, Sarah Louise Halliday, Clara Lyttle, Tanya McGerty

Claimants:

Respondent: Bluebird UK Bidco 2 Limited

Respondent:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The term ‘establishment’ in Article 1(1)(a)(ii) of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies must be interpreted in the same way as the term in Article 1(1)(a)(i) of that directive.

Article 1(1)(a)(ii) of Directive 98/59 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation that lays down an obligation to inform and consult workers in the event of the dismissal, within a period of 90 days, of at least 20 workers from a particular establishment of an undertaking, and not where the aggregate number of dismissals across all of the establishments or across some of the establishments of an undertaking over the same period reaches or exceeds the threshold of 20 workers.

---

(1)  OJ C 189, 29.6.2013.

1

---
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.  SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Jeff Finkelstein,  as Chief Financial Officer of SmarTire Systems,  Inc. (the
"Company")  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted by Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1)   the accompanying Form 10-KSB report for the period ending July 31, 2004 as
filed with the U.S.  Securities and Exchange  Commission  (the  "Report")  fully
complies  with the  requirements  of  Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)   the information  contained in the Report fairly presents,  in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Dated: October 29, 2004                             /s/ Jeff Finkelstein
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                    Jeff Finkelstein, CFO
No. 96-1256.

#### Kraytsberg *v.*Kraytsberg.

App. Ct. Mass. Certiorari denied.
#### In the Matter of Carrie B. and Others, Infants. Niagara County Department of Social Services, Respondent; David B., Sr., Appellant.

[700 NYS2d 896]

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in decision at Niagara County Family Court, Crapsi, J. (Appeal from Order of Niagara County Family Court, Crapsi, J. — Terminate Parental Rights.) Present — Lawton, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Hurlbutt and Scudder, JJ.
No. 47087.

#### Protests 49977-K, etc., of Associated Merchandising Corp. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
EXHIBIT 32.1



                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                   AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of NBC Acquisition Corp. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the year ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark W. Oppegard,
President/Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

(1)     The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
        15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)     The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
        respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
        Company.



                                            /s/ Mark W. Oppegard
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Mark W. Oppegard
                                            President/Chief Executive Officer
                                            June 29, 2005
Faulk, Scott (OST)
From: Sent: To: Subject: Mr. Scott, Paula Scott <pmondoy@gmail.com> Thursday, November21, 2013 5:34 PM Faulk, Scott (OST) Makani Kai Airservice to Kalaupapa

I am writing to letyou know that I am very satisfied with Makani Kai Air service to Kalaupapa. It is importantto allow this airline to operate this service for many reasons-one ofwhich is thatthey are affordable and allow the residents and visiting family and friends an affordable wayto travel. Not everyone can make the grueling 7.6 mile round trip hike up and down thattrail on the sea cliff. Sincerely, Paula Scott molokaigirlstudio

1
# C_2013063EN.01002201.xml

| 2.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/22

---

Action brought on 21 December 2012 — Oracle America/OHMI — Aava Mobile (AAVA MOBILE)

(Case T-554/12)

2013/C 63/43

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Oracle America, Inc. (Wilmington, United States) (represented by: M. 2Graf, lawyer)

Applicant:

2

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aava Mobile Oy (Oulu, Finland)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market in case R 1205/2011-2 dated October 9, 2012; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market in case R 1205/2011-2 dated October 9, 2012;

| — | Order the costs of the proceedings to be borne by the defendant. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the costs of the proceedings to be borne by the defendant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘AAVA MOBILE’, for goods and services in classes 9, 38 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 8 715 385)

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 6 551 626 for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 37, 38, 41, 42 et 45

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and (5) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.

Pleas in law:

---
Page 1 of 2 

* * * SUPPLEMENTAL PUBLIC NOTICE * * * 

ERRATA CORRECTION 

AVENAL ENERGY PROJECT 

ANNOUNCEMENT OF PUBLIC HEARING AND REQUEST FOR PUBLIC COMMENT 

ON PROPOSED ACTION AND SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF BASIS RELATING TO A 

CLEAN AIR ACT PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION PERMIT 

FOR THE EMISSION OF AIR POLLUTANTS 

PERMIT APPLICATION NO. SJ 08-01 

Please note that the public notice published on March 4, 2011 concerning the above-referenced matter 

contained a typographical error. Paragraph number 15 of the notice should be replaced with the 

following text: 

“All comments on EPA’s current proposed action and Supplemental Statement of Basis relating to the 

PSD permit application for the Project must be received by email or postmarked by April 12, 2011. 

Comments must be sent or delivered in writing to Shirley Rivera at the postal or email address shown 

below. Comments should focus on the three issues listed above.” 

The corrected version was published today in this newspaper. We apologize for any confusion that this 

typographical error may have caused.
Page 2 of 2 

* * * AVISO PUBLICO COMPLEMENTARIO * * * 

CORRECCION ERRATA 

PROYECTO DE ENERGÍA AVENAL 

AVISO DE AUDIENCIA PÚBLICA Y SOLICITUD DE COMENTARIOS DEL PÚBLICO SOBRE 

LA MEDIDA PROPUESTA Y DECLARACIÓN DE FUNDAMENTOS COMPLEMENTARIA 

RESPECTO DE UN PERMISO DE PREVENCIÓN DE DETERIOROS SIGNIFICATIVOS 

CONFORME A LA LEY DE AIRE LIMPIO PARA LA EMISIÓN DE CONTAMINANTES 

ATMOSFÉRICOS 

SOLICITUD DE PERMISO No SJ 08-01 

Por favor tome nota de que la solicitud de comentarios públicos publicado el 4 de marzo referente a el 

proyecto mencionado contiene un error tipográfico. El párrafo numero 15 de la solicitud debe de ser 

reemplazado por el siguiente texto: 

“Todos los comentarios sobre la acción propuesta y la Declaración de Fundamentos Complementaria 

sobre la aplicación para el permiso de PSD para el Proyecto deben ser recibidos por correo electrónico o 

franqueados por el servicio postal antes del día 12 de abril de 2011. Los comentarios deben ser enviados 

por correo o transmitidos electrónicamente por escrito a Shirley Rivera a la dirección postal o la 

dirección de correo electrónico que se indican más adelante. Los comentarios deben referirse 

específicamente a los tres temas que se plantearon precedentemente. ”

La versión corregida se ha publicado en este periódico este mismo día. Le pedimos disculpa por 

cualquier confusión que este error tipográfico haya causado.
Exhibit 32.1
 Certifications of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Ixia Pursuant to
Rule 13a-14(b) under the Exchange Act and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date: May 6, 2010
    /s/  Atul BhatnagarAtul BhatnagarPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDate: May 6, 2010
    /s/  Thomas B. MillerThomas B. MillerChief Financial Officer
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 92 (Thursday, May 12, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 27744]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-11577]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Eighty-Fifth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 159: Global 
Positioning System (GPS)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of RTCA Special Committee 159 meeting: Global 
Positioning System (GPS).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a 
meeting of RTCA Special Committee 159: Global Positioning System (GPS).

DATES: The meeting will be held May 26, 2011, from 9 a.m. to 11:45 a.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., NBAA--McIntosh and 
ATA--Hilton Conference Rooms, 1828 L Street, NW., Suite 805, 
Washington, DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW., 
Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036; telephone (202) 833-9339; fax (202) 
833-9434; Web site http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App 2), notice is 
hereby given for a Special Committee 159: Global Positioning System 
(GPS) meeting. The agenda will include:

Plenary Session

May 26, 2011

     Chairman's Introductory Remarks.
     Approval of Summary of the Eighty-Fourth Meeting held 
February 11, 2011, RTCA Paper No. 082-11/SC159-991.
     Review/Approval of Proposed Final Report--Assessement of 
the LightSquared Ancillary Terrestrial Component Radio Frequency 
Interference Impact on GNSS L1 Band Airborne Receiver Operations.
     Other Business.
     Date and Place of Next Meeting.
     Adjourn.

Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may 
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 6, 2011.
Robert L. Bostiga,
RTCA Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 2011-11577 Filed 5-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
No. 39212.

#### Protest 944395-G of International Fwdg. Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

The protest was dismissed.