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

No. 13-73504

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 26, 2017*

Filed July 7, 2017

Deming Zeng, Pro Se

OIL, Lori Warlick, Trial Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App, P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Deming' Zeng, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the *619Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have 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). We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review, and we remand.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Zeng’s CAT claim because Zeng failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to China. *See id.*at 1073.

The BIA found Zeng’s asylum claim failed because he did not establish that a political opinion was or would be at least “one central reason” for his mistreatment by Chinese authorities. The BIA further found that because Zeng failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he did not meet the higher standard of proof for withholding of removal.

As to asylum, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination. *See Dinu v. Ashcroft,*372 F.3d 1041, 1043-45 (9th Cir. 2004) (concluding that heavy-handed tactics used by police during an investigation for legitimate purposes was not persecution on account of a protected ground).

As to withholding of removal, the BIA did not have the benefit of this court’s decision in *Barajas-Romero v. Lynch,*846 F.3d 351, 356-60 (9th Cir. 2017) when it issued its order. Thus, we grant the petition for review and remand Zeng’s withholding of removal claim to the BIA to determine the impact of this decision. *See INS v. Ventura,*537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part; REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
. ' ~ 

· <63CD-i-oJ 

} . 

' ... '::. . ' ~. 

· • \N::l~ll ~. :kcdq~~~ 1 Lto-z.'rrl tk.Jdi<:..\a\ D\coni~c-r \S, · .. ~ CnuQ't c:F lUDcrl.Coum~_,_· 

.lJ\<oi\2\ ~'t. Q. \6t2.'L ~~· -_· -----'------'~ '1 G~~ . . .\ , I , , 

tl6M\0.;<1li.tRME1~.. . ~. . RE-a!iVEcnN-- . '.· 00URTOFCBlMINALA~PEAlJ3~-

---~~(jlf56 ~0.. \(o 1 (ol.l.ce-: ~p0 \ MAR 1 6 2015 

c_au~b ·llD. \(o ,q~D ~~a·b\ · ~lie~ . ' . . WI~, 'lJI(fiVC( . . . . . ' ' ' 

i)Rlq\\Jc\ B\)p\\c.ot\o\1 fu~ ~~'ct- o£ N\ctrdaro\.\5> t .. . . ' 
' .. 

·~·-· .--:-'· ___ · Jt9·~· _ ... _···--~-~-

-
' ' 
.. '· 

-

~ :, . . .. 

-. 

•-tJc~n-rntcS. ~=-----=--~l-. -1--=----=-------~-- ' · .. -. --;-, --
#### TUITELEAPAGA, Plaintiff v. TULIFITI, Defendant

No. 12-1919

High Court of American Samoa Civil Jurisdiction, Trial Division [“Matai” name: “Toilolo”]

June 26, 1922

SYDNEY D. HALL, *Associate Judge of the High Court*

JUDGMENT

This cause coming on to be heard before S. D. Hall, Associate Judge of the High Court of American Samoa, and being heard and it appearing to the court that the matters in controversy had been amicably settled between the parties plaintiff and defendant, and it is therefore ordered, considered and adjudged that this action be dismissed, and Tulifiti registered in the name Toilolo.

It is further ordered, considered and adjudged by the court that the plaintiff pay the costs of this action $10.00.

Given under my hand and seal of the High Court of American Samoa this 26th day of June, 1922.

Consent admitted:

/s/ Tuiteleleapaga

Witness to above signature:

/s/ Faumuina
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>5
<MULTIPLIER>1,000





<S>                                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                                      DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                                         JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                                           DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                                                      23,623
<SECURITIES>                                                                11,873
<RECEIVABLES>                                                               30,279
<ALLOWANCES>                                                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                            70,904
<PP&E>                                                                      15,848
<DEPRECIATION>                                                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                             115,590
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                       20,392
<BONDS>                                                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                                      0
<COMMON>                                                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                                                  93,539
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                               115,590
<SALES>                                                                     89,911
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                            89,911
<CGS>                                                                       23,120
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                               23,120
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                            62,926
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                          (1,660)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                              5,525
<INCOME-TAX>                                                                 5,517
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                              8
<DISCONTINUED>                                                                 372
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                                  0
<CHANGES>                                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                                                   380
<EPS-BASIC>                                                                 0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                                 0.03



</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6750 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.6750

                     One Hundred Eighteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
         the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-four

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
 501 Mercer Street Southwest in Wilson, North Carolina, as the ``Milton 
                  F. Fitch, Sr. Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. MILTON F. FITCH, SR. POST OFFICE BUILDING.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 501 Mercer Street Southwest in Wilson, North Carolina, shall 
be known and designated as the ``Milton F. Fitch, Sr. Post Office 
Building''.
    (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 ``Milton F. 
Fitch, Sr. Post Office Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-10-00856-CV

Adam E. SALAZAR,

Appellant

v.

Roberto D. ROSS, M.D.,

Appellee

From the 225th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2007-CI-02712

Honorable Peter A. Sakai, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Delivered and Filed: June 8, 2011

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

Appellant’s brief, which was due on April 25, 2011, has not been filed. On May 6, 2011, 

this court ordered appellant to show cause in writing by May 23, 2011, why this appeal should 

not be dismissed for want of prosecution. Appellant did not respond. The appeal is dismissed 

for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b). Costs of appeal are taxed 

against appellant.

PER CURIAM
#### David Mills BECKER Plaintiff-Appellant v. Dennis CROW; Robert Erlandson; Loyd Krein; Pete Freid; Roughrider Industries; NDSP Defendants-Appellees

No. 16-4138

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: August 31, 2017

Filed: September 8, 2017

David Mills Becker, Pro Se

Matthew A. Sagsveen, Assistant Attorney General, Attorney General’s Office, Bismarck, ND, for Defendants-Appellees Dennis Crow, Roughrider Industries, NDSP

Jagorca Ana Juric, Assistant Attorney General, Matthew A. Sagsveen, Assistant Attorney General, Attorney General’s Office, Bismarck, ND, for Defendants-Appel-lees Robert Erlandson, Loyd Krein, Pete Freid

Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

David Becker appeals from the order of the District Court1 granting summary judgment in favor of the remaining defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.

After review, we conclude that summary judgment was proper for the reasons explained by the district court. See Ebersole v. Novo Nordisk, Inc., 758 F.3d 917, 923 (8th Cir. 2014) (standard of review). The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. Becker’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied.

1

. The Honorable Daniel L. Hovland, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of North Dakota, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable Charles S. Miller, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of North Dakota.
# Úřední věstník C 19A/2014

| | ISSN 1977-0863
  doi:10.3000/19770863.CA2014.019.cze |
| --- | --- |
| Úřední věstník
  Evropské unie | C 19A |
| | |
| České vydání | Informace a oznámení | Svazek 5722. ledna 2014 |

ISSN 1977-0863

doi:10.3000/19770863.CA2014.019.cze

Úřední věstník

Evropské unie

C 19A

České vydání

Informace a oznámení

Svazek 5722. ledna 2014

---

| Oznámeníč. | Obsah | Strana |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Oznámení |
| | SPRÁVNÍ ŘÍZENÍ |
| | Evropská agentura pro léčivé přípravky |
| 2014/C 019A/01 | Oznámení o zrušení | 1 |

Oznámeníč.

Obsah

Strana

V   Oznámení

SPRÁVNÍ ŘÍZENÍ

Evropská agentura pro léčivé přípravky

2014/C 019A/01

Oznámení o zrušení

1

PŘEHLED VÝBĚROVÝCH ŘÍZENÍ ZVEŘEJNĚNÝCH V ŘADĚ C A ÚŘEDNÍHO VĚSTNÍKU

Níže najdete seznam Úředních věstníků řady C A publikovaných v tomto roce.

Pokud není uvedeno jinak, jsou Úřední věstníky publikovány ve všech jazykových verzích.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 6 | |
| 11 | |
| 19 | |

5

6

11

19

| CS | |
| --- | --- |

CS

---

V Oznámení

SPRÁVNÍ ŘÍZENÍ

Evropská agentura pro léčivé přípravky

| 22.1.2014 | CS | Úřední věstník Evropské unie | CA 19/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.1.2014

CS

Úřední věstník Evropské unie

CA 19/1

---

Oznámení o zrušení

(2014/C 19 A/01)

Evropská agentura pro léčivé přípravky se rozhodla zrušit tato výběrová řízení:

| — | EMA/CA/S/039: smluvní zaměstnanec (krátkodobá smlouva), vědecká podpora pro Evropský dohled nad spotřebou antimikrobik ve veterinární medicíně (ESVAC) (FG IV) (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

EMA/CA/S/039: smluvní zaměstnanec (krátkodobá smlouva), vědecká podpora pro Evropský dohled nad spotřebou antimikrobik ve veterinární medicíně (ESVAC) (FG IV) (1)

| — | EMA/CA/S/040: smluvní zaměstnanec (krátkodobá smlouva), vědecký sekretariát pro stanoviska Evropské komise týkající se antimikrobiální rezistence, oddělení veterinárních léčivých přípravků (FG IV) (2) |
| --- | --- |

—

EMA/CA/S/040: smluvní zaměstnanec (krátkodobá smlouva), vědecký sekretariát pro stanoviska Evropské komise týkající se antimikrobiální rezistence, oddělení veterinárních léčivých přípravků (FG IV) (2)

---

(1)  Úř. věst. C 320 A, 6.11.2013, s. 2.

(2)  Viz poznámka pod čarou 1.

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus ACEVEDO-LANDIN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-50437

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 *

Filed October 2, 2017

Alicia Phillip Williams, Assistant U.S., Pelen H. Hong, Assistant U.S., Office of *494the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Kurt David Hermansen, Esquire, Law Office of Kurt David Hermansen, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Jesus Acevedo-Landin appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 24-month sentence for attempted reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Acevedo-Landin’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Acevedo-Landin the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 99.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SS.1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report, as amended, of Micromem TechnologiesInc. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the period ended October 31, 2002 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, AntonioLopes, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

        (1) The Report fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and 

        (2) The information contained inthis Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

Date: May 20, 2003

|   | /s/Antonio Lopes Antonio Lopes |
|--------|-------------------------------------|
#### AMERISOURCEBERGEN SPECIALTY GROUP, INC., Appellant v. FFF ENTERPRISES, INC., Appellee

2016-2025

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 6, 2017

Jamil Alibhai, Munck Wilson Mandala, LLP, Dallas, TX, argued for appellant. Also represented by Daniel E. Venglarik.

Thomas M. Melsheimer, Winston & Strawn LLP, Dallas, TX, argued for appel-lee. Also represented by Thomas B. Walsh; John A. Dragseth, Fish & Richardson P.C., Minneapolis, MN.

(Wallach, Taranto, and Stoll, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                       5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998
OF CARIBINER INTERNATIONAL, INC. AS SET FOURTH IN THIS FORUM 10-Q AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                    1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          15,117
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  116,736
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,966
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               158,679
<PP&E>                                         186,961      
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (90,210)      
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 698,185
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           98,040
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           236
<OTHER-SE>                                     166,768
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   698,185
<SALES>                                        159,983
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               159,983
<CGS>                                          119,266
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  119,266
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                36,093
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,527
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (10,059)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (4,024)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (10,059)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (6,035)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.25)
        


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

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND> This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from 
the Balance Sheet/Income Statement and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements. 
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       1,712,024
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       4,817,693
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 51,234,184
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                    258,576,406
<ALLOWANCE>                                  2,661,210
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             334,718,424
<DEPOSITS>                                 245,659,068
<SHORT-TERM>                                14,250,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          2,236,078
<LONG-TERM>                                 22,837,759
<COMMON>                                        40,111
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  49,695,408
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             334,718,424
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             15,118,419
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            2,441,673
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            17,560,092
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           8,044,700
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           9,481,407
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        8,078,685
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  180,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                              51,362
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              5,516,834
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,171,857
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   5,171,857
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,296,010
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.04
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.69
<LOANS-NON>                                    541,663
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             2,150,588
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   13,651
<RECOVERIES>                                       855
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            2,661,210
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         2,661,210
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### Cecelia Rapp, Appellant, *v.*F. Linwood Myers, Respondent.

Argued October 5, 1943;

decided November 24, 1943.

*710
      *Fred Forman*for appellant.

*Thomas H. Clearwater*and *William F. Martin*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed) with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thaoheb, JJ.