alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SALVADOR MENDOZA

- MEJIA,

Petitioner,

v. ROBERT M. WILKINSON , Acting Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 19

- 70966 Agency No. A091

- 077

- 435

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 20, 2021 * *
B efore: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Salvador Mendoza

- Mejia , 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 decisions denying his denying his application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

* 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). 

# F ILED

JAN 27 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 70966

W e have jurisdiction un d er 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the agency’s particularly serious crime determination. Arbid v. Holder , 700 F.3d 379, 383 (9th Cir. 2012). Review is “limited to ensuring that the agency relied on the appropri ate factors and proper evidence to reach [its] conclusion.” Avendano

Hernandez v. Lynch , 800 F.3d 1072, 1077 (9th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted)

. We review factual findings for substantial evidence. Garcia

- Milian v.
Holder , 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We review de novo due process
claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales , 400 F.3d 785, 791

- 92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in determining Mendoza

- Mejia’s distribution of methamphetamine conviction is a particularly serious crime that renders him ineligible for withholding of removal, where drug trafficking crimes are presumed to be particularly ser ious, and the agency relied on the appropriate factors and proper evidence in concluding he failed to rebut that presumption. See
8 U.S.C. §1231(b)(3)(B)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(d)(2); Miguel

- Miguel v. Gonzales , 500 F.3d 941, 949 (9th Cir. 2007) (recogniz ing the “strong presumption that drug trafficking offenses are particularly serious”). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because
Mendoza

- Mejia failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See3 19

- 70966

Aden v. Holder , 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009)

. Mendoza

- Mejia’s challenges to the BIA ’ s streamlining procedure fail. See Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft , 350 F.3d 845, 850

- 52 (9th Cir. 2003) ( BIA’s streamlined decision did not violate due process ); see also Lata v. INS , 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

BREANN WATERHOUSE and ROBERT 

WATERHOUSE,

 Appellants,

v.

FNU GOFIT,

 Appellee,

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-21-00124-CV

Appeal from the

County Court at Law Number 7

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2021DCV1503)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. We further order that Appellee 

recover from Appellants and their sureties, if any, see TEX.R.APP.P. 43.5, for performance of the 

judgment and all costs in this Court, for which let execution issue. This decision shall be certified 

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Chief Justice

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ.
Form of  1998 Stock Plan


 Exhibit 10.1 
  

					
	 	 	                                      
                  LOOKSMART, LTD.
	STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT	 	 
	I. Notice of Stock Option Grant	 	                                       
                  AMENDED AND RESTATED
                                       
                  1998 STOCK PLAN

			
	Name of Optionee	 	                                      
                  Option Number:	 	000000
	Street address	 	                                      
                  Plan:	 	1998
	City, State, Country	 	 	 	 

  
 Effective
     you have been granted a Non-Qualified Stock Option to buy      shares of LookSmart, Ltd. (the Company) stock at $     per share. 
  
 The total option price of the shares granted is $    . 

 
 Shares in each period will become fully vested on the date shown. 
  

							
	 Shares

	  	 Vest Type

	  	 Full Vest

	  	 Expiration


	__	  	On Vest Date	  	__	  	__
	__	  	        Monthly	  	__	  	__

  
 By your signature and the
Company’s signature below, you and the Company agree that these options that these options are granted under and governed by the terms and conditions of the Company’s Stock Option Plan as amended and the Option Agreement. 
  

			
	
	  	

	 LookSmart, Ltd./ Title: VP
	  	 Date

		
	
	  	

	 Optionee
	  	 Date


  

 Page 1of 4
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DATED AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                             267
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,046
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,521
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,464
<PP&E>                                           7,857
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,228
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   9,372
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,366
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        320
<COMMON>                                           136
<OTHER-SE>                                    (10,471)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     9,372
<SALES>                                         47,785
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                47,785
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   32,132
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                16,446
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   856
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,293
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,942)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       150
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,092)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,092)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.37)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.37)
        

</TABLE>
NO. 07-10-0038-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO
PANEL D APRIL 12, 2010

__________________ ____________ ROBERT DAVID JACKSON, Appellant V. JESSICA LEA GRAY, Appellee

__________________ ____________ FROM THE 46th DISTRICT COURT OF WILBARGER COUNTY; NO. 25,112; HON. DAN MIKE BIRD, PRESIDING

__________________ ____________ MEMORANDUM OPINION

__________________ ____________ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. Robert David Jackson perfected this appea l on January 25, 2010. The appellate record was due on or about March 12, 2010. Bo th the district clerk and court reporter have filed motions to extend the time to f ile their records because appellant apparently failed to pay or make arrangements to pay for them, as required by Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 35.3(a)(1)( 2) and 35.3(b)(3). By letter dated March 29, 2010, we directed appellant to certify to this court, by April 8, 2010, that he had complied with rule of2 procedure 35.3(a)(1)(2) and 35.3(b )(3). So too was he informed that failure to meet that deadline would result in the dism issal of his appeal. To date, this court has not received either the clerk = s record, the reporter = s record, or notification that the records have been paid for or that arrangements have been made for payment. Nor has this court received any request to postpone the dismissal date. Consequently, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.

Per Curiam
exv10w3



 





Exhibit 10.3




Summary of Terms of Stock Option Awards Granted to Executive Officers




     IndyMac Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) grants stock option awards to its
executive officers under the 2000 Stock Incentive Plan and the 2002 Incentive
Plan, as amended and restated. The Company, however, does not enter into
formal award agreements with such executive officers. The following is a
summary of the standard terms of the stock awards granted to IndyMac Bancorp,
Inc. executive officers. The awards also are subject to the provisions of each
executive officer’s employment agreement, and such agreements have been filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission to the extent required by the
Securities and Exchange Commission’s rules and regulations.




	 	1.	 	Term of Options and Limitations on the Right to Exercise. The term
of the options will be for a period of ten (10) years. To the extent
not previously exercised, the options will lapse prior to the 10-year
expiration date upon the earliest to occur of the following
circumstances:






	 	(a)	 	Three months after the executive officer’s
termination of employment for any reason other than death,
disability, retirement or cause.
	 
	 	(b)	 	Twelve months after the executive officer’s
termination of employment by reason of disability or if the
executive officer incurs a disability within three months after
the date of termination in accordance with subsection (a).
	 
	 	(c)	 	Twelve months after the executive officer’s
termination of employment by reason of death or if the executive
officer’s death occurs within three months after the date of
termination in accordance with subsection (a).
	 
	 	(d)	 	Twelve months after the executive officer’s
termination of employment by reason of his or her retirement.
	 
	 	(e)	 	Immediately upon the executive officer’s termination
of employment for cause.






	 	2.	 	Vesting and Acceleration of Vesting. The options vest annually
over three (3) years. Five executive officers hold options with a
five-year vesting schedule, and the Management Development and
Compensation Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors reserves the
right to grant future options with a three- to five-year vesting
schedule.






     Notwithstanding the foregoing vesting schedule, upon the
executive officer’s termination of employment with the Company by
reason of his or her retirement, all options will become fully vested
and exercisable. Upon the occurrence of a change in control, all
options granted under the 2000 Stock Incentive Plan will immediately
become fully vested and exercisable. Upon the occurrence of a change
in control, all options granted under the 2002 Incentive Plan, as
amended and restated, will become fully vested and exercisable on the
earliest to occur of the following: (i) the first anniversary of the
date of the change in control, or (ii) the executive officer’s
termination of employment by reason of his or her death or
disability, without cause or for good reason.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois  60604

January 16, 2008

Before

Hon. JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

Hon. DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge

Hon. ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

No. 07‐1584

STATE OF WISCONSIN,

Plaintiff‐Appellee,

v.

HO‐CHUNK NATION,

Defendant‐Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Western District

of Wisconsin.

No. 05 C 0632 ‐ S

John C. Shabaz,

Judge.

ORDER

The slip opinion of this court issued on January 14, 2008 is amended as follows:

On Page 24, in the second line, the word “Nation” should be replaced with “State”.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 28.1

                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549





                                    FORM 11-K
                                  ANNUAL REPORT
                        PURSUANT TO SECTION 15(D) OF THE
                         SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934



(Mark One)

[X] ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF
1934

For the fiscal year ended    December 31, 1997
                             -----------------

                                       OR

[ ] TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT
    OF 1934

For the transition period from _______________ to ___________

Commission file number  33-43597
                        --------

     A. Full title of the plan and the address of the plan, if different from
that of the issuer named below.

             Sofamor Danek Group, Inc. Employee Stock Purchase Plan

     B. Name of issuer of the securities held pursuant to the plan and the
address of its principal executive office:

                                    Sofamor Danek Group, Inc.
                                    1800 Pyramid Place
                                    Memphis, TN  38132



                                       1
[No. 24718-6-II.

Division Two.

November 22, 2000.]

#### Robert Weaver, Appellant, v. The City of Tacoma, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 98-2-08110-0, Terry D. Sebring, J., entered April 26, 1999. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Seinfeld, J., concurred in by Morgan and Houghton, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.2
                                                                    ------------

                      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


                  The undersigned, Edward F. Cooke, Chief Financial Officer of
         Levcor International, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies, pursuant
         to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
         Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (1)      the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year
                  ending December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and
                  Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Annual 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 Annual Report fairly
                  presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
                  and results of operations of the Company.


By: /s/ EDWARD F. COOKE
    -------------------
     Name:  Edward F. Cooke
     Title: Chief Financial Officer, Vice President,
            Secretary and Treasurer


March 29, 2006

================================================================================
EXHIBIT 21


                          SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY


The following is a list of subsidiaries of Registrant as of March 31, 1999, 
other than subsidiaries which, considered in the aggregate as a single 
subsidiary, would not consitute a significant subsidiary as defined by 
Securities and Exchange Commission Regulation S-X

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

               NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                           STATE OF 
                                                          INCORPORATION
<S>                                                         <C>     
Acceptance Insurance Holdings Inc. (1)                      Nebraska
Radice Lands, Inc. (1)                                      Florida
The Redland Group, Inc. (1)                                 Iowa
Acceptance Insurance Services, Inc. (2)                     Nebraska
Acceptance Insurance Company (2)                            Nebraska
Redland Transportation, Inc. (2)                            North Carolina
Acceptance Indemnity Insurance Company (3)                  Nebraska
Phoenix Indemnity Insurance Company (3)                     Arizona
American Agrisurance, Inc. (4)                              Iowa
Redland Insurance Company (5)                               Iowa
Agro International, Inc. (6)                                Iowa
Crop Insurance Marketing, Inc. (7)                          Iowa
American Agrijusters, Co. (8)                               Iowa
American Growers Ins. Company (8)                           Nebraska
U. S. Ag Insurance Services Inc. (9)                        Texas
Acceptance Casualty Insurance Company (8)                   Texas
Acceptance Premium Finance Company (10)                     Arizona
Redland Specialty Underwriters, Inc. (11)                   Iowa

<FN>
__________

(1)  A wholly owned subsidiary of Acceptance Insurance Companies Inc.

(2)  A wholly owned subsidiary of Acceptance Insurance Holdings Inc.

(3)  A wholly owned subsidiary of Acceptance Insurance Company. 

(4)  A wholly owned subsidiary of The Redland Group, Inc.

(5)  An approximately 99.99% owned subsidiary of The Redland Group, Inc.

(6)  An approximately 80% owned subsidiary of The Redland Group, Inc.

(7)  A wholly owned subsidiary of American Agrisurance, Inc.

(8)  A wholly owned subsidiary of Redland Insurance Company.

(9) An approximately 60% owned subsidiary of Redland Insurance Company.

(10) A 50% owned subsidiary of Acceptance Insurance Companies Inc.

(11) A 50% owned subsidiary of The Redland Group, Inc.
</FN>
</TABLE>
Bureau of Labor Statistics

Series Id:

Series title:

Labor force status:

Type of data:

Age:

Years:

Year Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4 Annual

2011 109946

Employed full time (persons who usually work 

Number in thousands

20 years and over

2011 to 2011

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

Original Data Value

LNU02500024Q

Not Seasonally Adjusted

(Unadj) Employed, Usually Work Full Time, 20 

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Generated on: May 16, 2011 (02:07:50 PM)
*OPINION ISSUED MAY 28, 2008*

#### ELMER SANDRETH AND REBECCA SANDRETH VS. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS

(CC-07-377)

Kevin M. Pearl and Michael G. Simon, Attorneys at Law, for claimants.

Andrew F. Tarr, Attorney at Law, for respondent.

*114PER CURIAM:

This claim was submitted to the Court for decision upon a Stipulation entered into by claimants and respondent wherein certain facts and circumstances of the claim were agreed to as follows:

1. On or about October 1, 2007, the claimants’ son, Micah Sandreth, was traveling on Route 2 in New Cumberland, Hancock County, when a rock fell from the Station Hill wall into the path of the vehicle, causing damage to the tire, rim, and suspension system.

2. Respondent was responsible for the maintenance of Route 2 which it failed to maintain properly on the date of this incident.

3. As a result, claimants’ vehicle sustained damage in the amount of $933.61.

4. Claimants and respondent both agree that the amount of $466.80 for the damages put forth by the claimants is a fair and reasonable amount to settle this claim.

The Court has reviewed the facts of the claim and finds that respondent was negligent in its maintenance of Route 2 on the date of this incident; that the negligence of respondent was the proximate cause of the damages sustained to claimants’ vehicle; and that the amount of the damages agreed to by the parties is fair and reasonable. Thus, claimants may make a recovery for their loss. The parties agreed that the amount of $466.80 represents a full compromise and settlement for this claim.

Accordingly, the Court is of the opinion to and does make an award in the amount of $466.80.

Award of $466.80.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF DUPONT PHOTOMASKS, INC. AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          28,999
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   39,221
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     16,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               100,907
<PP&E>                                         398,053
<DEPRECIATION>                                 199,348
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 305,250
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           52,920
<BONDS>                                          9,187
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           152
<OTHER-SE>                                     235,124
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   305,250
<SALES>                                        136,137
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               136,137
<CGS>                                           89,004
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   89,004
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,331
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (545)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 25,627
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,850
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             17,464
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    17,464
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.12
        

</TABLE>
ANTOINE DANIELLE 

PEARSON,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-1799

Opinion filed June 8, 2016.

Petition for Habeas Corpus -- Original Jurisdiction.

William Mallory Kent of The Law Office of William Mallory Kent, Jacksonville, for 

Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tayo Popoola and Thomas H. Duffy, Assistant 

Attorneys General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied.

LEWIS, BILBREY, and WINOKUR, JJ., CONCUR.