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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WEIBO XIE,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney

General,

Respondent. No. 20

- 70812

Agency No. A206

- 334

- 905

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 14, 2021 * *

Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Weibo Xie, a native and citizen of China, petition s for review of the Board

of Immigration Appeal s’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration

judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withh olding of removal, and

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

* 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

DEC 17 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 70812

8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual findings for substantial evidence. Zehatye v.

Gonzales , 453 F.3d 1182, 11 84

- 85 (9th Cir. 2006)

. We deny the petition for

review.

Substantial evidence supports the determination that Xie failed to establish

he suffered harm that rises to the level of persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales , 454

F.3d 1014, 1019

- 21 (9th Cir. 2006) (detention, beating, and interrogation did not

compel a finding of past persecution). Substantial evidence also suppo rts the

determination that Xie did not establish a well

- founded fear of future persecution.

See id

. at 1022 (petitioner failed to present “compelling, objective evidence

demonstrating a well

- founded fear of persecution”). Thus, Xie ’s asylum claim

fails.

In this case, because Xie failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he also

failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye , 453 F.3d at

1190

.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because Xie

failed to sh ow it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the consent

or acquiescence of the government if returned to China

. See Zheng v. Holder , 644

F.3d 829, 835

- 36 (9th Cir. 2011) ( possibility of torture too speculative ).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED

.
Earlier this summer, EPA sent you a copy of its Pressed W ood Manufacturing Industry Survey. According

to our records, yo u have not returned the survey yet. As you may know, the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wo od Products Act was recently passed by Congress and signed into law. T he Act adopts some of the provisions in CARB’s composite wood products rule, but it m andates that EPA determine other requirements. For example, the Act requires EPA to determine whether to exempt laminated products from the federal rule.
EPA needs companies to respond to the survey so that we can understand the potential im pact of these upcoming regulations. We would appreciate it if you could take the time to complete and return the survey by **September 15, 2010**

. Ple ase let me know if you will be able to return the completed survey by September 15. If you think that the survey does not apply to yo ur company, please let me know wh y you believe that is the case. And d o not hesitate to contact me if you have any questi ons y ou would like answered before completing the survey. Thank you ver y m uch for your time.

Wi lliam Silagi
Economic and Polic y Analysis Branch U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Mail Code 7406M, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Wa shing ton, DC 20460 Phone: (202) 564

- 8788 silagi.william@epa.gov
#### Theresa McGuire, Respondent-Appellant, v Joseph A. Epstein et al., Appellants-Respondents, et al., Defendant.

— In an action to recover damages for abuse of process, malicious prosecution, and prima facie tort, the defendants Joseph A. Epstein, M.D., and Long Island Neurosurgical Associates, P. C., appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Molloy, J.), entered December 21, 1989, as denied that branch of their motion which was to dismiss the second cause of action asserted in the amended complaint. The plaintiffs cross appeal from so much of the same order as granted the branch of the appellants’ motion which was to dismiss the first and third causes of action asserted in the amended complaint and as denied her leave to file a second amended complaint, was withdrawn upon the oral argument of the appeal.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the plaintiff.

According every favorable inference to the allegations of the second cause of action asserted in the amended complaint *(see generally, Sanders v Winship,*57 NY2d 391; *Pollnow v Poughkeepsie Newspapers,*107 AD2d 10, *affd*67 NY2d 778), we find that it sufficiently sets forth facts stating a cause of action for malicious prosecution *(see, Colon v City of New York,*60 NY2d 78, 82; *Broughton v State of New York,*37 NY2d 451, 457, *cert denied sub nom. Schanberger v Kellogg,*423 US 929; *McGuire v Epstein,*167 AD2d 453; *Hornstein v Wolf,*109 AD2d 129, *affd*67 NY2d 721). Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.
# C_2009019EN.01001502.xml

| 24.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/15

---

Appeal brought on 10 November 2008 by Alcon Inc. against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 10 September 2008 in Case T-106/07 Alcon Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-481/08 P)

(2009/C 19/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Alcon Inc. (represented by: M. Graf, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), *Acri.Tec AG Gesellschaft für ophthalmologische Produkte

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the Judgment under appeal and annul the contested decision |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Judgment under appeal and annul the contested decision

| — | Order OHIM to bear the costs |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM to bear the costs

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant contends that the contested judgment should be set aside on the following grounds:

| — | Distortion of facts and evidence since the relevant consumers are normal consumers. This is a question of law which must be decided by the Court even when the argument was first raised in the oral hearing, ‘da mihi facta, dabo tibi ius’. |
| --- | --- |

—

Distortion of facts and evidence since the relevant consumers are normal consumers. This is a question of law which must be decided by the Court even when the argument was first raised in the oral hearing, ‘da mihi facta, dabo tibi ius’.

| — | Error in application and interpretation of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (1) and distortion of facts and evidence since apparently only the pronunciation in the English language of the marks ‘BioVisc’ and ‘DUOVISC’ was taken into account, not the pronunciation in the French language. |
| --- | --- |

—

Error in application and interpretation of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (1) and distortion of facts and evidence since apparently only the pronunciation in the English language of the marks ‘BioVisc’ and ‘DUOVISC’ was taken into account, not the pronunciation in the French language.

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ L 11, p. 1).

1

---
# C_2008051EN.01004802.xml

| 23.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/48

---

Action brought on 18 December 2007 — Nokia v OHIM — Medion (LIFE BLOG)

(Case T-460/07)

(2008/C 51/90)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Nokia Oyj (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: J. Tanhuanpää, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Medion AG (Essen, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

| — | The decision of 2 October 2007 of the Second Board of Appeal in Case R 141/2007-2 should be set aside in its entirety and the case should be remitted to the OHIM for registration of the applicant's trade mark; |
| --- | --- |

—

The decision of 2 October 2007 of the Second Board of Appeal in Case R 141/2007-2 should be set aside in its entirety and the case should be remitted to the OHIM for registration of the applicant's trade mark;

| — | the respondent should be ordered to pay the costs of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

the respondent should be ordered to pay the costs of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for the Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The Community word mark ‘LIFE BLOG’ for goods and services in class 9, 38 and 41 — application No 3 564 366

Community trade mark concerned:

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

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

Mark or sign cited: The national and international word marks ‘LIFE’ and ‘LIFETEC’, for goods and services in classes 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 21, 28, 37, 38, 41 and 42; the national and international word mark ‘LIFESAT’ for goods in Class 9 and the national word mark ‘Lifesign’ for goods in Classes 9, 14 and 16

Mark or sign cited:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the application for registration partially

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the opposition and dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94.

Pleas in law:

---
Incorporation by Reference 

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0923 

January 7, 2010 

The contents of the following dockets are hereby incorporated by reference into and are 

considered to be included in, contained in and to have been placed in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR2009-0923 (Oil and Natural Gas Systems Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule Rulemaking): 

1) EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508 (Greenhouse Gas Mandatory Reporting) 

2) EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0924 (Determination of Confidential Business Information) 

3) EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0925 (Corporate Parent and NAICS code) 

4) EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0926 (Carbon Dioxide Injection and Geologic Sequestration) 

Accessing dockets: 

Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA’s Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA West 

Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004. This Docket 

Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. 

The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone 

number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.
<Page>


                                                                 Exhibit 10.12


                    MAC-GRAY SENIOR EXECUTIVE INCENTIVE PLAN


NAME OF PLAN:       Mac-Gray Senior Executive Incentive Plan (the "Plan")

OBJECTIVES:         1.  Drive revenue growth and accountability.
                    2.  Tie senior management compensation to performance.
                    3.  Motivate and inspire senior executives to contribute
                        at peak performance.

ELIGIBILITY:        The Company's named executive officers ("NEO's") are
                    eligible to participate in the Plan.

TARGET AWARDS:      Each year, the Compensation Committee of the Board of
                    Directors (the "Committee") establishes a target cash bonus
                    award for each NEO, expressed as a dollar amount or
                    percentage of the NEO's base salary. The target award is
                    based on a combinations of financial goals and individual
                    (personal) factors. The target award shall indicate the
                    potential cash bonus to be attained upon the (i) NEO's
                    attaining a specified percentage of the goals, (ii) NEO's
                    attaining 100% of the goals, and (ii) NEO's exceeding the
                    goals.

FINANCIAL GOALS:    Financial goals comprise 65% of the target award. The
                    financial goals consist of the following: (i) revenue,
                    pre-tax or after-tax profit levels of the Company or any
                    subsidiary, or a division, an operating unit or a business
                    segment of the Company or any subsidiary, or any
                    combination of the foregoing; and (ii) earnings before
                    interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization or cash flow
                    of the Company or any subsidiary, or a division, an
                    operating unit or a business segment of the Company or any
                    subsidiary, or any combination of the foregoing. The
                    financial goals may be adjusted by the Committee to take
                    into account significant events such as corporate
                    acquisitions.

INDIVIDUAL FACTORS: Individual (personal) factors comprise 35% of the target
                    award. The individual factors that are established by
                    the Committee are specific to each NEO.

PAYMENT OF AWARDS:  At the end of the fiscal year, the determination of
                    the cash bonus amounts to be paid shall be determined based
                    on the Company's actual financial results under the
                    financial goals and the Committee's determination of each
                    NEO's performance under the individual factors. Bonus
                    awards will not be paid if neither the financial goals nor
                    the individual factors are attained.
# C_2020161EN.01001301.xml

| 11.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/13

---

Order of the Court of 6 November 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Specializat Mureş — Romania) — MF v BNP Paribas Personal Finance SA Paris Sucursala Bucureşti, Secapital Sàrl

(Case C-75/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Directive 93/13/EEC - Consumer contracts - Consumer credit - Enforcement proceedings - Time limit of 15 days from service of enforcement proceedings to raise the unfairness of a term)

(2020/C 161/18)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Specializat Mureş

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: MF

Defendant: BNP Paribas Personal Finance SA Paris Sucursala Bucureşti, Secapital Sàrl

Operative part of the order

Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as precluding a rule of national law by which a consumer who concluded a loan agreement with a credit institution and against whom that supplier initiated enforcement proceedings is time-barred, beyond a period of 15 days from service of the first documents in those proceedings, from relying on the existence unfair terms to defend those proceedings, even if under national law the consumer may bring an action for a finding of unfair terms which is not subject to any time limit, but the outcome of which has no bearing on the outcome of the enforcement proceedings, which may be binding on the consumer before the conclusion of the action for a finding of unfair terms.

---

(1)  OJ C 164, 13.5.2019.

---
# C_2008301EN.01002502.xml

| 22.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/25

---

Action brought on 22 September 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-417/08)

(2008/C 301/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A.A. Gilly and U. Wölker, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Defendant:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 concerning environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage (1), or in any event by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 concerning environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage (1), or in any event by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive;

1

| — | order United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period within which the directive had to be transposed expired on 30 April 2007.

---

(1)  OJ L 143, p. 56.

1

---
Exhibit 32          CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                         AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFCIER
               PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the quarterly Report of TheraBiogen, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
we, Kelly T. Hickel, Chief Executive Officer and Robert Hipple, Manager of
CF Consuliting, LLC, principal financial officer, certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. section 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 result of operations of the Company.

December 5, 2008

/s/ Kelly T. Hickel
--------------------------------------
Kelly T. Hickel
Chief Executive Officer

/s/ Robert Hipple
--------------------------------------
Robert Hipple, Manager
CF Consulting, LLC
Principal Financial Officer
Exhibit
10.20


 


MOCON, INC.


 


DESCRIPTION
OF NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR

RETIREMENT PLAN


 


 


In recognition of, and as additional
compensation for, service on the board of directors of MOCON, Inc., a
non-employee director of MOCON who has served on the board of directors of
MOCON for at least five years will, upon retirement, receive an amount equal to
the annual retainer fee such director would have been entitled to receive
during the fiscal year in which such director’s retirement occurs.  This payment, however, will not be made to a
director who, following his or her retirement,
continues to serve as a consultant to MOCON or any of its subsidiaries.  Any amount payable under this retirement plan
will be paid as determined by the MOCON board of directors in its sole
discretion following such director’s retirement.
1

Schaffner, Karen S.

From: Schaffner, Karen S.

Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 11:31 AM

To: 'Paul Siler'

Cc: Shedd.Steve@epamail.epa.gov

Subject: RE: RTR MVL: revised coordinates for TransMontaigne Ft Lauderdale FL

Good Morning, Paul: Thank you for your input on coordinates. The best approach may be to use actual Gasoline VRU 

coordinates for those specific records, and use the facility centroid for the ST records. I will make the revisions to the 

data set, and the TransMontaigne data set will be final. Thanks, Karen 

Gasoline VRU: Lat 26.094145 and Long -80.128705 

Facility centroid: Lat 26.094231 and Long -80.128651 

From: Paul Siler [mailto:PSiler@transmontaigne.com] 

Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 2:44 PM 

To: Schaffner, Karen S. 

Cc: Shedd.Steve@epamail.epa.gov

Subject: RE: RTR MVL: revised coordinates for TransMontaigne Ft Lauderdale FL 

Hello Karen, 

It appears that the RTI Centroid and gasoline VRU are very close together (approximately 34 feet). The API coordinate is 

approximately 200 feet to the East. If the HAP emissions from all sources at the Gasoline Distribution Bulk Terminal are 

being combined and modeled as once source, I believe the centroid would be the most appropriate. 

Please let me know if you have additional questions. 

Sincerely, 

Paul Siler, P.E. 

Air Quality Compliance Manager 

TransMontaigne 

1670 Broadway, Suite 3100 

P.O. box 5660 

Denver, CO 80217-5660 

 

From: Schaffner, Karen S. [mailto:ksschaffner@rti.org] 

Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 11:12 AM 

To: Paul Siler 

Cc: Shedd.Steve@epamail.epa.gov

Subject: RTR MVL: revised coordinates for TransMontaigne Ft Lauderdale FL 

Hi Paul: As we discussed, I wanted to review the appropriate coordinates to use for non-MTVLO emission sources at the 

TransMontaigne Ft. Lauderdale FL facility, in the revised 2005 NEI data file. Please confirm which of the following are 

appropriate to use, or if other coordinates would be best, indicate those and explain why. Thanks, Karen 
2

API recommended use of (determined coordinate values based on Figure 1 of their letter): Lat 26.094117 and Long -

80.128091. 

Facility centroid, based on RTI GIS value, is at approx: Lat 26.094231 and Long -80.128651. 

During our discussion, you noted the Gasoline VRU is at approx: Lat 26.094145 and Long -80.128705 

Karen Schaffner

Air Quality Engineering Group

RTI International

3040 Cornwallis Rd (800 Park, C311)

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

phone: (919) 316 3740

fax: (919) 541 7155