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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JORGE ANTONIO LUNA-BAUTISTA, 

AKA Jorge Antonio Bautista,

Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 14-73249

Agency No. A076-606-354

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 16, 2016**

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. 

Jorge Antonio Luna-Bautista, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for 

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal 

from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of 

removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

FILED

AUG 24 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 14-73249 

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the 

agency’s factual findings, Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008), 

and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Luna-Bautista

failed to establish a fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground. 

See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740-41 (9th Cir. 2008) (under the 

REAL ID Act, an applicant must prove a protected ground is at least “one central 

reason” for persecution). Thus, Luna-Bautista’s withholding of removal claim 

fails. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1015-16 (9th Cir. 2010).

Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of Luna-Bautista’s CAT 

claim because he failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not he would be 

tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official in Mexico. See 

Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### Roscoe PADGETT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. I-212.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District

Feb. 23, 1967.

Rehearing Denied March 30, 1967.

C. A. Avriett, Jasper, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and James G. Mahorner, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

JOHNSON, Judge.

The appeal here is from the order of conviction and sentence of appellant entered pursuant to a jury verdict of guilty.

The order appealed was entered September 9, 1966, and on that same date the appellant, through his counsel, was allowed ten days within which to file his motion for *224new trial. This leave of court was granted by the trial judge pursuant to F.S. § 920.02(3), F.S.A. However, on the next day, September 10, the appellant filed his notice of appeal to this court. Then on September 19, 1966, the appellant filed with the lower court his motion for new trial, this being within the ten day period allowed by the trial judge.

 This sequence of events and filings thus leaves this court without jurisdiction to proceed to consider this cause on the merits. An analogous situation was present in State ex rel. Owens v. Pearson, 156 So.2d 4 (Fla.1963). There the notice of appeal was filed and thereafter a timely petition for rehearing was then filed with the lower court. The question presented was whether the timely filing of the petition for rehearing subsequent to the filing of the notice of appeal deprived the appellate court of jurisdiction in the matter. The conclusion of the Supreme Court was that the question should be answered in the affirmative. By a timely filing of a petition for rehearing or motion for new trial the finality of the decree or order is destroyed and thus is not subject to appeal until the petition or motion has been disposed of in the trial court. It is to be noted that the *Pearson*case went on to determine where jurisdiction is vested when the filing of the documents is done in reverse order from that under consideration here. If the petition for rehearing or motion for new trial is filed and later a notice of appeal is filed then jurisdiction is lodged in the appellate court as the subsequent filing of the notice of appeal is considered as an abandonment of the previously filed petition or motion.

By statute a defendant in a criminal case is given the right to appeal from a final judgment of his conviction. F.S. § 924.06(1), F.S.A. A judgment is not final for purposes of appeal when there has been filed a timely motion for new trial and no disposition has been made thereof. Lee v. State, 128 Fla. 319, 174 So. 589 (1937); Shelby v. State, 155 Fla. 182, 21 So.2d 787 (1944).

Based upon the reasoning and authority set forth above, we herewith dismiss this appeal sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction to proceed in this cause.

WIGGINTON, Acting C. J., and SPECTOR, J., concur.
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2013-0353 Directorate ID: 2008-SW-029-AD

Helicopter Model: Eurocopter France Model AS332C, AS332L, AS332L1, AS332L2, and 

EC225LP Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 6 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: The actions of this AD are intended to prevent loss of the tail gearbox and loss of control

of the helicopter.

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $200 for three replacement bolts and the washers

$1,921 for the tail gearbox attachment fitting

Labor per Helicopter

(0.5 work-hour x $85/workhour for the inspection)

Labor per Helicopter

(0.5 work-hour x $85/workhour for the bolt replacement)

Labor per Helicopter

(40 work-hours x $85/workhour for the tail gearbox 

attachment fitting 

replacement)

$43

$43

$3,400

Other (Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter $243 for the bolt replacement

$5,321 for the tail gearbox attachment fitting 

replacement

Total US Fleet Cost $258 for the inspection

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Gary Roach
<PAGE>

                                                                 Exhibit 23.1






                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement 
(Form S-4 No. 333-44905) of ClimaChem, Inc. and in the related Prospectus of 
our report dated February 19, 1999, except for paragraphs (A) and (D) of Note 
6, as to which the date is April 14, 1999 with respect to the consolidated 
financial statements and schedule of ClimaChem, Inc. incorporated by 
reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 
1998.


                                                    ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
April 14, 1999
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit

__________________________ 

CESAR A. DELA ROSA, 

Petitioner,

v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, 

Respondent.

__________________________ 

2013-3078

__________________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. SF831E120107-I-1. 

__________________________ 

ON MOTION

__________________________ 

PER CURIAM. 

O R D E R

We construe Cesar A. Dela Rosa’s June 24, 2013 filing 

as a motion to submit a supplemental filing. He also 

moves to “unlock[] the newly submitted documents or 

pleadings by the respondent party.”

The court notes that there do not appear to be any 

confidential or “locked” documents on the court’s electronCase: 13-3078 Document: 19 Page: 1 Filed: 07/29/2013
CESAR DELA ROSA V. OPM 2

ic filling docket, and Dela Rosa does not mention any 

specific documents that he seeks to obtain. 

Upon consideration thereof, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

(1) The motion to “unlock[] the newly submitted documents or pleadings by the respondent party” is denied.

(2) The motion to submit a supplemental filing, which 

the court construes as a reply brief, is granted.

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole

 Daniel E. O’Toole

 Clerk

s26

Case: 13-3078 Document: 19 Page: 2 Filed: 07/29/2013
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                              5
<MULTIPLIER>                                           1,000

<S>                                                   <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                      Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                         Jan-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                           Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                          12-MOS
<CASH>                                                 5,013
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          362,747
<ALLOWANCES>                                           19,433
<INVENTORY>                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       372,307
<PP&E>                                                 113,522
<DEPRECIATION>                                         57,811
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         1,653,560
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  123,919
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                               965
<OTHER-SE>                                             1,302,253
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           1,653,560
<SALES>                                                1,827,686
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       1,827,686
<CGS>                                                  1,296,834
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          452,577
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       9,661
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     21,621
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        56,654
<INCOME-TAX>                                           (63,099)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    119,753
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                           119,753
<EPS-BASIC>                                            1.24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          1.23





</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Dean
Witter Spectrum Strategic Fund L.P. and is qualified in its entirety
by references to such financial instruments.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                      45,997,912
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  996,734<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              47,089,676<F2>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                47,089,676<F3>
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,905,380<F4>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,712,243
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (806,863)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (806,863)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (806,863)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Receivables include subscription receivable of $833,091 and interest
receivable of $163,643.
<F2>In addition to cash and receivables, total assets include net unrealized
gain on open contracts of $140,355 and net option premiums ($45,325).
<F3>Liabilities include redemptions payable of $1,490,536, accrued brokerage
commission of $323,442, and accrued management fees of $156,821.
<F4>Total revenue includes realized trading revenue of $4,980,402, net
change in unrealized of ($1,679,048) and interest income of $1,604,026.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.14


 


Summary of Non-Employee Director Compensation Program for 2014







Effective January 1, 2014, the following compensation program applies to non-employee directors of Compass Minerals International, Inc. (the “Company”):








	
1.

	
Annual Retainer -   Each non-employee director will receive from the Company an annual retainer of $155,000 per year:








	
a)

	
$70,000 of the annual retainer amount per year is the cash retainer and may be deferred into the Directors’ Deferred Compensation Plan at the election of the director; and








	
b)

	
$85,000 of the annual retainer amount per year must be deferred into the Directors’ Deferred Compensation Plan until ownership levels are met, and then may be deferred or taken in shares of stock of the Company.  Deferred amounts are converted into units equivalent to the value of the Company’s common stock and accumulated deferred fees are distributed in common stock.













	
2.

	
Ownership Levels -  Each non-employee member of the Board of Directors is required to obtain and to maintain ownership in Company stock (or its equivalent) equal to five times the annual cash retainer, which amount is to be achieved within five years of joining the Board.













	
3.

	
Committee Service Fee -   Each non-employee director will receive from the Company an annual fee for serving on each of the following committees, as follows:












	
Audit Committee

	 	
$

	
7,500

	 
	
Compensation Committee

	 	
$

	
5,000

	 
	
Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee

	 	
$

	
5,000

	 
	
Environmental, Health & Safety Committee

	 	
$

	
5,000

	 









	
4.

	
Committee Chair Fee.  Each non-employee director who serves as a committee chair for 2014 will receive from the Company the following annual fee, as follows:












	
Audit Committee

	 	
$

	
15,000

	 
	
Compensation Committee

	 	
$

	
10,000

	 
	
Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee

	 	
$

	
7,500

	 
	
Environmental, Health & Safety Committee

	 	
$

	
7,500

	 









	
5.

	
Lead Independent Director.  The Lead Independent Director will be paid an annual fee in the amount of $20,000 per year.













	
6.

	
Cash v. Deferral Election.  Non-employee directors may elect to receive fees paid for serving on a committee, as a committee chair, and as Lead Independent Director in cash or may elect to defer such into the Company’s Directors’ Deferred Compensation Plan.
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Antonio Markeith O ’ Neal, Appellant

No. 06

- 13

- 00245

- CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 6th District Court of Red River County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No.
59CR1100 ). Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Morriss, Justice Carter and Justice Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court ’ s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Antonio Markeith O ’ Neal, has adequately indicated his

inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED AUGUST 12, 2014
BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III
CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:
Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 173 (Thursday, September 6, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 45262]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19317]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting Microbiology, Infectious 
Diseases and AIDS Initial Review Group Microbiology and Infectious 
Diseases B Subcommittee.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Microbiology, Infectious Diseases and AIDS 
Initial Review Group; Microbiology and Infectious Diseases B 
Subcommittee MID-B September Review Meeting.
    Date: September 25-26, 2018.
    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, 
Rockville, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Ellen S. Buczko, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Program Division of Extramural 
Activities, National Institutes of Health/NIAID, 6700B Rockledge 
Drive, MSC 7616 Bethesda, MD 20892-7616, 301-451-2676, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#422720372138292d73022c2b232b266c2c2b2a6c252d34"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="35505740564f5e5a04755b5c545c511b5b5c5d1b525a43">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: August 30, 2018.
Natasha M. Copeland,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-19317 Filed 9-5-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER 

Appellate case name: Claudia Kristine Esquivel v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-16-00301-CR

Trial court case number: 14CR1878

Trial court: 212th District Court of Galveston County

Date motion filed: October 16, 2017

Party filing motion: Appellant

Appellant’s motion for this court to publish its September 7, 2017 opinion in this case is 

DENIED.

Judge’s signature: /s/Michael Massengale 

 Acting Individually Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Chief Justice Radack, and Justices Keyes, and Massengale

Date: January 25, 2018
Exhibit 32.2


​


Certification of Principal Financial Officer


Pursuant to


Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)





In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2018 (the “Report”) of GSV Capital Corp. (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Allison Green, the Principal Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:





|    |                                                                                                                                  
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(1) | 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 Registrant.

/s/ Allison Green​Name: Allison GreenDate: August 9, 2018
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT LI LIE NG, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 10-73089 Age n c y No. A099-419-019
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d

April 9, 2014 * * Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : FER

NANDEZ, N.R
. SM ITH, a nd M U R GUIA, C irc uit Judge s. Ng, a native and c itiz e n of Indone sia , pe titions for re v ie w of a de c ision of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls (B IA) dism i ssing he r a ppe a l from

an 

# FIL E D APR 11 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).im

m igration judge ’ s (IJ) de c ision de ny ing he r a pplic ation for a sy lum
. 1 W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252, a nd we de ny

the pe tition for re vie w. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the B IA’ s de te rm ination tha

t the inc ide nts Ng
e xpe rie nc e d (the burning of he r fam ily hom e and suffe ring a

burn to he r le g) in Indone sia during the M ay

1998 riots, e ve n c onside re d c um ulative ly , did not rise

to the l e ve l of pa st pe rse c ution. Se e Halim v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 971, 976 (9th C ir. 2009) (ha

ra ssm e nt, thre ats, a

nd one be at ing did not c o m pe l finding of pa st pe rse c ution). Furthe r, the re c ord doe s not c om pe l a c onc lusion diffe re n t from the B IA’ s de te rm ination tha

t Ng’ s siste r’ s ra

pe , while de plora

ble , wa s not ba se d on a patte rn of pe rse c ution re l ate d to Ng he rse lf. Se e W ak k a ry v . Holde r , 558 F.3d 1049, 1060 (9th C ir. 2009). Substa ntia l e v i de nc e a lso supports the B IA’ s c onc lusion tha

t Ng fa ile d to pre s e nt e v ide nc e of a

n individualiz e d risk of futurepe rse c ution ba se d on a disfa vore d group a

na l y sis, a nd thus tha

t she did not e sta

blish a we ll-founde d fe ar of future pe rse c ution. Se e Lolong v . Gonzale s , 484 F.3d 1173, 1180-81 (9th C ir. 2007) (e n ba

nc ) (holding tha

t pe titione r wa s ine ligible for a sy lum in pa rt be c a use she pre se nte d no e vide nc e of individual iz e d risk of futurepe rse c ution). Ng did not

1 Ng fa ile d to ra i se he r c la im s for withholding of re m ova l and prote c tion unde r C AT in he r ope ning brie f. The re fore , she wa ive d those issue s. S e e Martine z -Se rrano v . IN

S , 94 F.3d 1256, 1260 (9th C ir. 1996).

2pre s e nt a

ny e vide nc e tha

t she or m e m

be rs of he r fam ily

we re individually

ta rge te d. The only inc i de nt of pe rse c ution wa s ba se d on the c ivil unre st tha t ta rge te d a ll
e thnic C hine se , whic h oc c urre d during theM a y 1998 riots. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

3