alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### ZUNQIANG CHEN, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-60462 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed September 28, 2017

Stewart Lin, Lin & Valdez, L.L.P., Houston, TX, for Petitioner

Lindsay M. Murphy, Esq., Trial Attorney, Matt A. Crapo, Office of Immigration *188Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Zunqiang Chen petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal of the denial, by the immigration judge (“U”), of asylum and withholding of removal. Chen’s claims are premised on his resistance to China’s coercive population-control policies.

The factual determination that an alien is not eligible for asylum or withholding of removal is reviewed under the substantial-evidence standard. *See Chen v. Gonzales,*470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). We may not reverse such factual findings unless “the evidence was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could conclude against it.” *Wang v. Holder,*569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009). It is the petitioner’s burden to demonstrate that the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. *See id.*

Chen claims that he suffered persecution in the form of mental suffering when his wife was forced to have an abortion. That claim is unexhausted, however, because Chen did not assert it as a basis for relief before the BIA. *See Roy v. Ashcroft,*389 F.3d 132, 137 (5th Cir. 2004); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). Next, Chen avers he suffered persecution when he was fired from his job and when he was detained while his wife underwent the forced abortion. Such a firing and detention do not rise to the level of extreme conduct necessary to establish persecution. *See Majd v. Gonzales,*446 F.3d 590, 595 (5th Cir. 2006); *see also Bing Shun Li v. Holder,*400 Fed.Appx. 854, 858 (5th Cir. 2010). Chen also contends that the $15,000 in fines imposed by the Chinese government constitutes persecution, especially in light of the loss of his employment and the expenses incurred by his family. We conclude that the evidence in the record does not compel a finding that these fines constitute a severe economic deprivation. *See Abdel-Masieh v. INS,*73 F.3d 579, 583 (5th Cir. 1996); *Wang,*569 F.3d at 637.

Finally, Chen maintains that the BIA failed to consider his arguments and evidence and did not provide a “reasoned explanation” for its decision. But he does not specify what evidence and arguments were not considered. We also conclude that the BIA’s order reflects the required “meaningful consideration of the relevant substantial evidence supporting the alien’s claims.” *Abdel-Masieh,*73 F.3d at 585.

The petition for review is DENIED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the coprt has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47,5.4.
# Unexpected Urgent Refugee and Migration Needs

# Memorandum for the Secretary of State

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 2(c)(1) of the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962 (22 U.S.C. 2601(c)(1)) (MRAA), I hereby determine, pursuant to section 2(c)(1) of the MRAA, that it is important to the national interest to furnish assistance under the MRAA in an amount not to exceed $1.2 billion from the United States Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund for the purpose of meeting unexpected urgent refugee and migration needs to support Operation Allies Welcome and related efforts by the Department of State, including additional relocations of individuals at risk as a result of the situation in Afghanistan and related expenses. Such assistance may be provided on a bilateral or multilateral basis as appropriate, including through contributions to international organizations and through funding to other nongovernmental organizations, governments, and United States Government agencies.

                    You are authorized and directed to submit this determination to the Congress, along with the accompanying Justification, and to publish this determination in the                     *Federal Register*.                

[FR Doc. 2022-02626

Billing code 4710-10-P
#### Joe JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-1691

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 17, 2016

Decided: November 21, 2016

Joe Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Sandy David Baron, Meredith Campbell, Joy Catherine Einstein, Shulman, Rogers, Gandal, Pordy & Ecker, PA, Potomac, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Joe Johnson appeals the district court’s orders granting him leave to amend his complaint, granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss, and denying his motion for reconsideration. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible: error. Accordingly, we affirm. Johnson v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., No. 8:15-cv-00558-PWG (D. Md. Mar. 16, 2015; Nov. 17, 2015; filed May 17, 2016 & entered May 18, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal' contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           16107
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     3698
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                            3281
<DEPRECIATION>                                    2628
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   92830
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          2436
<OTHER-SE>                                       26743
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     92830
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  9700
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     8857
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    843
<INCOME-TAX>                                       352
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                491
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       491
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.09


</TABLE>
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 201 3 - 0 209 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 201 2 -NM - 127 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch Man ager**  **Date**
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1444 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1444

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 21, 2021

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 132 North Loudoun Street, Suite 1 in Winchester, Virginia, as the 
                      ``Patsy Cline Post Office''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PATSY CLINE POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 132 North Loudoun Street, Suite 1 in Winchester, Virginia, 
shall be known and designated as the ``Patsy Cline Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Patsy 
Cline Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 20, 2021.

            Attest:

                                             CHERYL L. JOHNSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Exhibit 13







Consent of Edward Kenny

United States Securities and Exchange
Commission



Ladies and Gentlemen:



I, Edward Kenny, Professional Engineer, hereby
consent to the use of and reference to my name, and the inclusion in the annual report on Form 40-F of New Gold Inc. of the information
reviewed and approved by me that is of a scientific or technical nature contained in the Annual Information Form for the financial
year ended December 31, 2016 regarding the water and tailings management facilities at the Rainy River project set out under the
heading “Mineral Properties – Rainy River Project, Canada – Exploration and Development – Water and Tailings
Management Facilities Update”.



Dated this 30th day of March, 2017



Yours truly,



|      | /s/ Edward Kenny     
|----- | ---------------------
|Name: | Edward Kenny         
|      | Professional Engineer
|      | New Gold Inc.
Exhibit 32

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

(as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

In connection with this quarterly report of Nanophase Technologies Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jess A. Jankowski, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to our knowledge:

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.

Date: May 11, 2009



/s/ JESS JANKOWSKIJess JankowskiChief Executive Officer/s/ JESS JANKOWSKIJess JankowskiChief Financial Officer
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION FOR R ECONSIDERATION E N B ANC

Appellate case name: In re Camp La Junta 1928, LP, Blake Smith, Camp La Junta, Inc., CLJ

Management Systems, L.L.C.

Appellate case number: 01

- 15

- 00551

- CV

Trial court case number: 2012

- 31192

Trial court: 333rd District Court of Harris County

Date motion filed: 08/07/15

Party filing motion: Relators

It is ordered that the motion en banc reconsideration is DENIED GRANTED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Sherry Radack

____________________ ______________________

Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings, Keyes, Higley, Bland,

Massengale, Brown, Huddle, and Lloyd.

Date: August 27, 2015
Exhibit 8









Certification
of President and Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In
connection with the filing of the annual report on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 (the “Report”)
by New Gold Inc. (the “Company”), I, Hannes Portmann, as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the
best of my knowledge that:



| | 1. | The
                                         Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange
                                         Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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





|Dated: March 30, 2017                 | 
|------------------------------------- | 
|                                      | 
|/s/ Hannes Portmann                   | 
|                                      | 
|Hannes Portmann                       | 
|President and Chief Executive Officer |
Jessie FLOYD, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D18-0855

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 30, 2018

Jessie Floyd, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied on the merits.

Makar, Winokur, and Winsor, JJ., concur.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JAMES HENRY STEPHENSON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D19-2688

[July 29, 2021]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, 

Okeechobee County; Michael Heisey, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

472017CF000475.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Stacey Kime, Assistant Public 

Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Deborah Koenig, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CONNER, C.J., WARNER and GROSS, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
A00A1382.

#### BONEY v. THE STATE.

(538 SE2d 791)

Blackburn, Presiding Judge.

Allen Boney, Jr., pro se, appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his second motion for out-of-time appeal in which Boney claimed ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. We affirm because Boney’s claim should have bejen raised by a petition for writ of habeas corpus.

Following Boney’s conviction of possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute on June 21,1993, Boney appealed. The conviction was affirmed by this Court in an unpublished opinion, *Boney v. State.*
      *1*
      **Four years later, Boney filed a pro se motion for out-of-time appeal, raising a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel,2 which was dismissed by the trial court. Boney appealed the dismissal to this Court, but his appeal was dismissed due to his failure to timely file the notice of appeal. See *Boney v. State.*
      *3*
      **Thereafter, Boney filed the present motion for out-of-time appeal with the trial court, raising again a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, which the trial court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

1. In this appeal, Boney contends the trial court erred by dismissing his second motion for out-of-time appeal. We disagree. In our second opinion concerning Boney’s claims, we informed him that an out-of-time appeal is appropriate when a direct appeal was not taken, and that he had already taken a direct appeal. We also informed him that his recourse was a writ of habeas corpus. *Boney v. State,*236 Ga. App. 179. The trial court did not err.

2. The State’s motion to dismiss is denied.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Eldridge and Barnes, JJ, concur.*

*892Decided August 29, 2000

Reconsideration dismissed September 14, 2000

Allen Boney, Jr., *pro se.*

*Timothy G. Vaughn, District Attorney, Russell P. Spivey, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.

*Boney v. State,*212 Ga. App. XXVII (1994).

Boney contended that appellate counsel “failed to raise clearly meritorious arguments on appeal.”

*Boney v. State,*236 Ga. App. 179 (510 SE2d 892) (1999).
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Antonio SILOS-FERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-51238 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 18, 2017

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Jose Antonio Silos-Férnandez, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Antonio Silos-Fernandez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Silos-Fernandez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
exv10w3









Exhibit 10.3




Employment Agreement of Ronald R. Dilling

Amendment




     Pursuant to Section 19 of the Employment Agreement between SeraCare Life Sciences, Inc. and
Ronald R. Dilling dated February 1, 2008 (the “Agreement”), SeraCare Life Sciences, Inc.
(the“Company”) and Ronald Dilling (the “Executive”) hereby agree to amend the Agreement as follows,
effective February 1, 2008:




	1.	 	A new sentence is added at the end of Section 3(e), to read in its entirety as follows:
	 
	 	 	“Any such payment or reimbursement of such expenses that could constitute “nonqualified
deferred compensation” subject to Section 409A of the United States Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as amended, shall be subject to the Company’s reimbursement policy or policies in
effect from time to time.”
	 
	2.	 	A new sentence is added after the heading in Section 4(f), to read in its entirety as follows:
	 
	 	 	“Any payment of the Final Compensation payable pursuant to this Section 4 shall be made
promptly and in all events within sixty (60) days of the Executive’s separation from
service, subject, in the case of reimbursements, to the Executive’s delivery to the Company
of such documentation as described under Section 4(a)(iii) and to the Company’s
reimbursement policy or policies in effect from time to time.”
	 
	3.	 	A new Section 4(g) is hereby added to read in its entirety as follows:
	 
	 	 	“(g) For purposes of this Agreement, references to termination of employment, separation
from service and similar or correlative terms mean a “separation from service” (as defined
at Section 1.409A-1(h) of the Treasury Regulations) from the Company and from all other
corporations and trades or businesses, if any, that would be treated as a single “service
recipient” with the Company under Section 1.409A-1(h)(3) of the Treasury Regulations.”





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company by its duly authorized officer, and Executive, have executed this
Amendment this 31st day of December, 2008.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	THE COMPANY:	 	 	 	THE EXECUTIVE:
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:
	 	 /s/ Susan L.N. Vogt	 	 	 	/s/ Ronald R. Dilling	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	Susan L.N. Vogt	 	 	 	Ronald R. Dilling	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	Title: President and Chief
Executive Officer	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 






Employment Agreement of Ronald Dilling — Amendment




Page 1 of 1