alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JESUS RAMOS BAUTISTA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-73819

Agency No. A096-159-143

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 19, 2013** 

Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Jesus Ramos Bautista, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of

removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and

FILED

DEC 10 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * 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).
cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We

review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Nahrvani v.

Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1151 (9th Cir. 2005), and we deny in part and dismiss in

part the petition for review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Bautista established changed

or extraordinary circumstances sufficient to excuse his untimely filed asylum

application. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.4(a)(4), (5). Accordingly, we deny the petition

as to his asylum claim.

Bautista, an indigenous Guatemalan who served in the civil patrol, testified

soldiers thought he assisted the guerrillas while he lived in Guatemala. Bautista

also testified that, while gangs never physically harmed him, and neither he nor his

family members have had any particular problems with gangs, gangs now pose a

problem. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Bautista

failed to establish either past persecution or that it is more likely than not he would

be persecuted upon his return to Guatemala. See Nahrvani, 399 F.3d at 1153-54

(threats, harassment, and property damage did not constitute past persecution, and

fear of future persecution was too speculative). Accordingly, Bautista’s

withholding of removal claim fails.

2 09-73819
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Bautista’s CAT

claim because he failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured if

returned to Guatemala. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir.

2008).

Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary

determination that Bautista did not make the requisite showing of exceptional and

extremely unusual hardship to be eligible for cancellation of removal. See

Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 929-30 (9th Cir. 2005).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

3 09-73819
MEMORANDUM

TO: Air and Radiation Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0293

FROM: EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality

SUBJECT: Calls and Meetings with Powered Diesel Fuel Systems Inc.

This memorandum provides a record of conversations that EPA staff had with Claude Convisser of 

Powered Diesel Fuel Systems Inc. (POP Diesel) regarding their petition submitted pursuant to 40 CFR 

80.1416 requesting that EPA evaluate the lifecycle GHG emissions for the use of neat jatropha oil as a 

transportation fuel.

Date of Conversation Topics Discussed

April 23, 2012 Fuel registration pursuant to 40 

CFR Part 79

November 13, 2012 Petition review process

September 26, 2013 Status of petition review and 

various topics regarding the RFS 

regulations at 40 CFR Part 80 

Subpart M

October 23, 2013 Status of petition review

February 13, 2015 Status of petition review

April 17, 2015 Status of petition review, 

heating value of neat jatropha 

plant oil fuel

September 24, 2015 POP Diesel’s claims of 

Confidential Business 

Information
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 203 (Tuesday, October 21, 1997)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 54569]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28026]




                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 1997 / 
Presidential Documents
Federal Register
Vol. 62, No. 203
Tuesday, October 21, 1997

____________________________________________________________________

Title 3--
The President

[[Page 54569]]

                Presidential Determination No. 98-2

                
Presidential Determination on the Proposed 
                Agreement for Cooperation Between the Government of the 
                United States of America and the Government of the 
                Federative Republic of Brazil Concerning Peaceful Uses 
                of Nuclear Energy

                Memorandum for the Secretary of State [and] the 
                Secretary of Energy

                I have considered the proposed Agreement for 
                Cooperation Between the Government of the United States 
                of America and the Government of the Federative 
                Republic of Brazil Concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear 
                Energy, along with the views, recommendations, and 
                statements of the interested agencies.

                I have determined that the performance of the agreement 
                will promote, and will not constitute an unreasonable 
                risk to, the common defense and security. Pursuant to 
                section 123 b. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
                amended (42 U.S.C. 2153(b)), I hereby approve the 
                proposed agreement and authorize you to arrange for its 
                execution.

                The Secretary of State is authorized and directed to 
                publish this determination in the Federal Register.

                    (Presidential Sig.)<Clinton1><Clinton2>

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    Washington, October 9, 1997.

[FR Doc. 97-28026
Filed 10-20-97; 8:45 am]
Billing code 4710-10-M
#### Gerald Wayne SMITH, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 40164.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 15, 1970.

Certiorari denied. 238 So.2d 120.

ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 11, 2014

No. 04-14-00341-CV

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR CITY OF SAN ANTONIO & SAROSH 

MANAGEMENT, LLC d/b/a A-Z Food Mart,

Appellants

v.

EAST CENTRAL INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Appellee

From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2009-CI-17596

Honorable Laura Salinas, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellee's unopposed motion for extension of time to file brief and request for expedited 

ruling is hereby MOOT. Appellee's brief is due on or before September 2, 2014.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

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

court on this 11th day of August, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
**UNITED STATES**

**SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION**

**Washington, D.C. 20549**

 

**SCHEDULE 14A**

 

**INFORMATION REQUIRED IN PROXY STATEMENT**

**SCHEDULE 14A INFORMATION**

 

Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of

the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Amendment No.     )

 

| Filed by the Registrant | [ X ] |
|-------------------------|-------|

 

| Filed by a Party other than the Registrant | [ | ] |
|--------------------------------------------|---|---|

 

Check the appropriate box:

| [ X ] | Preliminary Proxy Statement |
|-------|-----------------------------|

 

| [   ] | Confidential, for Use of the Commission Only (as permitted by Rule 14a-6(e)(2)) |
|-------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| [   ] | Definitive Proxy Statement |
|-------|----------------------------|

| [   ] | Definitive Additional Materials |
|-------|---------------------------------|

| [   ] | Soliciting Material Pursuant to §240.14a-12 |
|-------|--------------------------------------------------|

 

DWS VALUE EQUITY TRUST

(Name of Registrant as Specified In Its Charter)

 

 ______________________________________________

(Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement, if other than the Registrant)

 

Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):

| [ X ] | No fee required. |
|-------|------------------|

| [   ] | Fee computed on table below per Exchange Act Rules 14a-6(i)(1) and 0-11. |
|-------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | (1) | Title of each class of securities to which transaction applies: |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | (2) | Aggregate number of securities to which transaction applies: |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | (3) | Per unit price or other underlying value of transaction computed pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 0-11 (set forth the amount on which the filing fee is calculated and state how it was determined): |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | (4) | Proposed maximum aggregate value of transaction: |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | (5) | Total fee paid: |
|--------|-----|-----------------|

| [   ] | Fee paid previously with preliminary materials. |
|-------|-------------------------------------------------|

----
The State of

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 20, 2014

No. 04-14-00555-CR

Robert MARTINEZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 5, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 307125

Honorable Jason Pulliam, Judge Presiding

ORDER

On November 12, 2014, we abated this appeal and remanded the cause to the trial court 

to determine, inter alia, whether Appellant is indigent, Appellant desires court-appointed 

counsel, or Appellant wishes to represent himself. We set deadlines for the trial court and 

district clerk to act, but we suspended all other appellate deadlines.

On November 19, 2014, Appellant filed a motion for extension of time to file his brief. 

Appellant’s motion is MOOT. After we receive the supplemental record from the district clerk, 

we will issue an order setting appellate deadlines. 

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

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

court on this 20th day of November, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 11

                     COMPUTATIONS OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                         1997         1996         1995
                                      -----------  -----------  -----------
<S>                                   <C>          <C>           <C>
Loss from continuing operations       (28,786,604) (7,783,713)  (3,441,376)
Extraordinary Loss                              0           0     (679,178)
                                      -----------  -----------  -----------
Net Loss                              (28,706,604) (7,783,713)  (4,120,554)
                                      ===========  ===========  ===========
Basic and diluted weighted
  shares outstanding                   10,251,402  10,187,909    5,577,120
Basic and diluted net loss per
   common share:
 Loss from continued operations             (2.81)      (0.76)       (0.62)
 Extraordinary Loss                             0        0.00        (0.12)
                                      -----------  -----------  -----------
Net Loss                                    (2.81)      (0.76)       (0.74)
                                      ===========  ===========  ===========
</TABLE>
STATE OF IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

1410 North Hilton • Boise, Idaho 83706 • (208) 373-0502 October 21, 2011
Mr. Rick Albright, Director Office of Air, Waste and Toxics U.S. EPA Region 10 1200 Sixth Ave. - AWT-128 Seattle, WA 98101 C.L. "Butch" Otter, Governor Toni Hardesty, Director

RECEIVED CCI 2 5 2011 Office of Air, Waste & Toxics Dear Mr. Albright: Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, (IDEQ), has promulgated Idaho hazardous waste rules and standards to incorporate all final federal delegable hazardous waste regulations to July I, 2010. The Attorney General's Statement has been revised to indicate updated equivalency and the Program Description notes any changes since the last authorization approval to 711107 which was finalized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I0 (EPA) on December 23, 2008. Many of the documents contained in this Revised Authorization Application have not substantively changed. Clarifications were made and agreed to by EPA and IDEQ to the document flow found in the existing RCRA Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) and these clarifications have been included with the RCRA MOA in this application. Any other documents that have changed are included or noted in this Revised Authorization Application. IDEQ intends to continue to operate an exemplary hazardous waste program. By section 39-4404 of the Idaho Hazardous Waste Management Act, IDEQ is directed by the Idaho Legislature to assume primacy and maintain consistency with the federal hazardous waste management program, A key to the success and consistency of the IDEQ Hazardous Waste Program has been the ongoing, mutual, long standing working relationship that EPA Region 10 and IDEQ have developed, maintained and valued over the years. With this Revised Authorization Application for RCRA Clusters XVIII, XIX, and XX, IDEQ requests a program revision to extend hazardous waste program authority for all final federal delegable hazardous waste regulations promulgated from 711107 to 71111 0. Please contact John Brueck of my staff at (208) 373-0458 or by e-mail, (Jolm.Brueck(cudeq.idaho.gov ), if you have any questions regarding this Revised Authorization Application. Sinc
e ely,

Brian R. Monson Hazardous Waste Program Manager Waste Management and Remediation Division File: AU w2
#### Mrs. Myrtle SONS, Widow of Harry McNEELY v. BARON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY and United Bonding Insurance Company.

No. 4538.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

Feb. 8, 1971.

Joseph W. Nelkin, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellee.

Beard, Blue, Schmitt & Treen, Lawrence J. Duplass, Harvey C. Koch, New Orleans, for defendants-appellants.

Before REDMANN, TAYLOR and STOULIG, JJ.

TAYLOR, Judge.

This is a motion to dismiss defendants’ appeal on the grounds that the required suspensive appeal bond was not timely filed. Defendants did however file the bond within the devolutive appeal time. Accordingly defendants have perfected a devolutive appeal to this court.

Plaintiff further argues that defendants’ appeal should be dismissed on the grounds that the transcript was not lodged with this court on the stated return date. Plaintiff has not alleged fault on defendants’ part which resulted in a delay in lodging the record. Therefore we have no basis on which to dismiss defendants’ appeal.

Motion denied.
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 11-315 

________________________________________________________________________ 

JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE 

Cooperation 

 Agreement Between 

the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and AUSTRIA 

Signed at Vienna June 29, 2010 

 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
AUSTRIA 

Judicial Assistance: Cooperation 

 Agreement signed at Vienna June 29, 2010; 

 Entered into force March 15, 2011.
Exhibit 4.2




 




Amendment No. 1 to Master Security Agreement

and Other Related Documents




 




This Amendment

to Master Security Agreement and Other Related Documents is made as of

February 25, 2000, by and between General Electric Capital Corporation,

for itself and as agent for certain participants (“Secured Party”) and Atchison

Casting Corporation (“Debtor”).  The

parties entered into that certain Master Security Agreement dated as of

December 29, 1999 (the “Agreement”). 

Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, the Secured Party made a Loan to

the Debtor in the original principal amount of $35,000,000.00 (the

“Loan”).  The Loan is evidenced by that

certain Promissory Note dated December 29, 1999 (“Note”) and is secured by the

Agreement, Collateral Schedule No. 1 dated December 29, 1999 (the “Collateral

Schedule”), that certain Mortgage, Security Agreement and Fixture Filing

(“Mortgage”) dated December 28, 1999 pertaining to a parcel of real

property located in Atchison County, Kansas, and that certain Deed of Trust,

Security Agreement and Fixture Filing (“Deed of Trust”) dated December 28,

1999 pertaining to a parcel of real property located in Buchanan County,

Missouri.




 




The Debtor

also executed and delivered certain other documents in conjunction with the

subject Loan including a Certificate of Delivery/Installation (“Certificate”)

and a Secretary’s Certificate.  (The

Note, Agreement, Mortgage, Deed of Trust, Certificate and Secretary’s

Certificate are collectively referred to herein as the “Documents”.)




 




The parties

hereby amend the date of execution of each of the Documents from

“December 29, 1999” to “December 28, 1999”, and in those instances in

which the date of execution of a Document is referenced in another Document,

any and all such references are hereby amended to provide that the date of

execution of such referenced Document was December 28, 1999.




 




Except as

expressly modified hereby, all terms and provisions of each of the Documents

shall remain in full force and effect.




 




IN WITNESS

WHEREOF, Secured Party and Debtor have caused this addendum to be executed by

duly authorized representatives as of the date first above written.




 




	

  General Electric Capital Corporation,


  for itself and as agent for certain


  participants


  	

   


  	

  Atchison Casting Corporation


  
	

   


  	

   


  	

   


  
	

   


  	

   


  	

   


  
	

  By:


  	

  /s/ Daniel

  W. Cochran


  	

   


  	

   


  	

  By:


  	

  /s/ Kevin T.

  McDermed


  	

   


  
	

  Name:


  	

  Daniel W.

  Cochran


  	

   


  	

   


  	

  Name:


  	

  Kevin T.

  McDeremd


  	

   


  
	

  Title:


  	

  Transaction

  & Syndication Manager


  	

   


  	

   


  	

  Title:


  	

  V.P. &

  Treasurer
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-23-00765-CV

Don Batson Jr., Appellant

v.

The Board of Regents of The University of Texas System on behalf of MD Anderson 

Cancer Center and Karl Johnson, Independent Administrator, Appellees

FROM PROBATE COURT NO. 1 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. C-1-PB-21-001152, THE HONORABLE GUY S. HERMAN, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant’s brief was originally due on February 29, 2024. After this Court

granted multiple motions requesting an extension of time to file his brief, appellant’s brief was 

due May 6, 2024. On May 24, 2024, this Court sent a notice to appellant informing him that his

brief was overdue and that a failure to file a brief or motion for extension of time by June 3, 

2024, would result in the dismissal of this appeal for want of prosecution. To date, appellant has 

not filed a brief or a motion for further extension of time. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal 

for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).
2

__________________________________________

Thomas J. Baker, Justice

Before Justices Baker, Smith, and Theofanis

Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Filed: July 3, 2024
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 209 (Wednesday, October 29, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 56222]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28677]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under OMB Review

ACTION: Notice of Reporting Requirements Submitted for Review.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 
Chapter 35), agencies are required to submit proposed reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements to OMB for review and approval, and to 
publish a notice in the Federal Register notifying the public that the 
agency has made such a submission.

DATES: Comments should be submitted on or before November 28, 1997. If 
you intend to comment but cannot prepare comments promptly, please 
advise the OMB Reviewer and the Agency Clearance Officer before the 
deadline.

COPIES: Request for clearance (OMB 83-1), supporting statement, and 
other documents submitted to OMB for review may be obtained from the 
Agency Clearance Officer. Submit comments to the Agency Clearance 
Officer and the OMB Reviewer.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Agency Clearance Officer: Jacqueline White, Small Business 
Administration 409 3RD Street, S.W., 5th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20416, 
Telephone: (202) 205-6629.
    OMB Reviewer: Victoria Wassmer, Office of Information and 
Regulatory, Affairs Office of Management and Budget, New Executive 
Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20503.
    Title: Procurement Automated Source System (PASS).
    Form No's: SBA Forms 1062 and 1395.
    Frequency: On Occasion.
    Description of Respondents: Small Business Interested in Federal 
Procurement Opportunities.
    Annual Responses: 242,000.
    Annual Burden: 47,333.
Jacqueline White,
Chief, Administrative Information Branch.
[FR Doc. 97-28677 Filed 10-28-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
```

[112th Congress Public Law 101]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[[Page 126 STAT. 270]]

Public Law 112-101
112th Congress

                                 An Act

 
   To designate the United States courthouse located at 222 West 7th 
  Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska, as the James M. Fitzgerald United States 
            Courthouse. <<NOTE: Mar. 14, 2012 -  [S. 1710]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. JAMES M. FITZGERALD UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE.

    (a) Designation.--The United States courthouse located at 222 West 
7th Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska, shall be known and designated as the 
``James M. Fitzgerald United States Courthouse''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the United States 
courthouse referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a 
reference to the ``James M. Fitzgerald United States Courthouse''.

    Approved March 14, 2012.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S. 1710:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
                                                        Vol. 157 (2011):
                                    Dec. 17, considered and passed 
                                        Senate.
                                                        Vol. 158 (2012):
                                    Mar. 5, considered and passed House.

                                  <all>
```