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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FRANCISCO JAVIER HERRERA VEGA, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 15-72194 

Agency No. A200-090-093 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 15, 2022**

Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

Francisco Javier Herrera Vega, 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”). Our 

* 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

JUN 23 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-72194 

jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence 

the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th 

Cir. 2020). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. 

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Herrera Vega

failed to demonstrate a nexus between the harm he experienced or fears in Mexico

and a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) 

(an applicant’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft 

or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”); 

Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 856 (9th Cir. 2009) (political opinion claim failed 

where petitioner did not present sufficient evidence of political or ideological 

opposition to the gang’s ideals), abrogated on other grounds by Henriquez-Rivas v. 

Holder, 707 F.3d 1081, 1093 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc). Thus, his withholding of 

removal claim fails.

We lack jurisdiction to consider the particular social groups raised for the 

first time in Herrera Vega’s opening brief because he failed to raise them before 

the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks 

jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because 

Herrera Vega 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. See 
3 15-72194 

Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1068 (9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of torture).

We reject Herrera Vega’s contention that the agency erred in its analysis of 

his claims as unsupported by the record.

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the 

mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE

ASSOCIATION,

Respondent

v.

JEBEH KAWAH,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 410 EAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 14th day of February, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.

Justice Mundy did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
Exhibit 32.1

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 the Quarterly Report of Golden Media, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2004 (the "Report"), I, Li Sze Tang, President, CFO and a director of the
Company, 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 requirement 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 Company's
> financial position and results of operations.

/s/Li Sze Tang



Li Sze Tang, President, CFO and

 a director

June 15, 2005
Case 5:05-cv-01890-RS Document 13 Filed 10/07/05 Page 1 of 2
Case 5:05-cv-01890-RS Document 13 Filed 10/07/05 Page 2 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

USA,

Plaintiff,

v.

YUGUANG WU,

Defendant.

Case No.17-mj-70090-MAG-1 (SK)

Charging District's Case No.

2:16-cr-00262-PM-KK

COMMITMENT TO ANOTHER DISTRICT

The defendant has been ordered to appear in the Western District of Louisiana (Lafayette). 

The defendant may need an interpreter for this language: Mandarin.

The defendant: ( ) will retain an attorney.

(X) is requesting court-appointed counsel.

The defendant remains in custody after the initial appearance.

IT IS ORDERED: The United States Marshal must transport the defendant, together with 

a copy of this order, to the charging district and deliver the defendant to the United States Marshal 

for that district, or to another officer authorized to receive the defendant. The Marshal or officer 

of the charging district should immediately notify the United States Attorney and the Clerk of the 

Clerk for that district of the defendant's arrival so that further proceedings may be promptly 

scheduled. The Clerk of this district must promptly transmit the papers and any bail to the 

charging district.

Dated: February 14, 2017

__________________________

SALLIE KIM

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:17-mj-70090-MAG Document 8 Filed 02/14/17 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-2347
CHARYLE G. EMEL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TOGO WEST, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at A lexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-97-130-A) Submitted: April 29, 1998 Decided: May 13, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charyle G. Emel, Appellant Pro Se. Major Thomas Mercer Ray, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellant appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Defendant in her civil rights action, in which she alleged she suffered employment discrimination based on her race and her gender. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no revers ible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Emel v. West , No. CA-97-130-A (E.D. Va. Aug. 26, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.2


                                 FIRST AMENDMENT
                                     TO THE
                 WOLVERINE TUBE, INC. 2003 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN


         This FIRST AMENDMENT to the Wolverine Tube, Inc. 2003 Equity Incentive
Plan (the "Plan") is adopted and approved by the Board of Directors (the
"Board") of Wolverine Tube, Inc. (the "Company") as of the 24th day of July,
2003.

         WHEREAS, the Company has previously adopted the Plan; and

         WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 15 of the Plan, the Board is authorized to
amend the Plan, and, in accordance therewith, the Board desires to amend the
Plan effective as of the date hereof.

         NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

         1. The first sentence of Section 3(a) of the Plan is hereby deleted in
its entirety and replaced with the following:

                  "Subject to adjustment as provided in Section 14 of this Plan,
                  the number of shares of Common Stock that may be issued or
                  transferred under the Plan shall not exceed 850,000 shares;
                  provided, however, that no more than 250,000 of such shares
                  may be issued or transferred under the Plan in the form of
                  Awards other than Options or Stock Appreciation Rights."

         2. The first sentence of Section 3(c) of the Plan up to but not
including subsections (i) through (iv) thereof, which subsections shall remain,
is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:

                  "Subject to the aggregate limits provided in subsection (a) of
                  this Section 3 and subject to adjustment as provided in
                  Section 14 of this Plan, no Participant shall be granted
                  during any one calendar year:"

         3. The remaining provisions of the Plan are hereby ratified and
confirmed.


<PAGE>



         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, and to evidence the adoption and approval of the
foregoing First Amendment by the Board, the Company has caused this First
Amendment to be duly executed in its name and behalf by its proper officer
thereunto duly authorized as of the date first above written.



                                         WOLVERINE TUBE, INC.

                                         /s/ Johann R. Manning, Jr.
                                         By: Johann R. Manning, Jr.
                                         Its: Senior V.P., Fabricated Products
                                         and General Counsel
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 [PROPOSED] ORDER RE APPLICATION TO APPEAR BY PHONE AT CASE 

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 

Case No. 4:17-cv-00341-HSG 

36275408v1 0989250 

HINSHAW & CULBERTSON

633 West 5th Street, 47th Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90071-2043 

213-680-2800 

MARTIN E. ROSEN (SBN 108998) mrosen@hinshawlaw.com 

RICHARD B. HOPKINS II (SBN 190108) 

rhopkins@hinshawlaw.com 

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP 

633 West 5th Street, 47th Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90071-2043 

Telephone: 213-680-2800 

Facsimile: 213-614-7399 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

WILCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

WILCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

AMOR M. IPADO, an individual, 

LYANNA PILLAZAR, an individual, 

NELSON LASAT, an individual, 

ENRIQUITO PILLAZAR, an individual, 

CONCEPSION PILLAZAR, an individual, 

LALAINE PILLAZAR, an individual, AND 

DOES 1 THROUGH 10, 

Defendants. 

Case No. 4:17-cv-00341-HSG

(Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.) 

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST 

TO APPEAR BY PHONE AT 

CASE MANAGEMENT 

CONFERENCE 

Case Management Conference: 

April 25, 2017 

2 p.m. 

Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, 1301 Clay 

Street, Oakland, CA 

Complaint Filed: January 23, 2017 

Discovery Cut-off: Not Set 

Motion Cut-off: Not Set 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 1 

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE APPLICATION TO APPEAR BY PHONE AT CASE 

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 

Case No. 4:17-cv-00341-HSG 

36275408v1 0989250 

HINSHAW & CULBERTSON

633 West 5th Street, 47th Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90071-2043 

213-680-2800 

Good cause being shown, the Court grants the request of Counsel for Plaintiff Wilco 

Life Insurance Company (“Wilco”) to appear by telephone at the Case Management 

Conference scheduled for April 25, 2017. Counsel shall contact CourtCall at (866) 

582-6878 to make arrangements for the telephonic appearance. 

 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated:____________ ____________________________________ 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

4/21/2017
### No. 82-31 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1982

TOM BROGAN, Plaintiff and Respondent,

VS

# . JOHN BLANCHARD, Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from: District Court of the Sixth JudicialDistrict, In and for the County of Park Honorable Jack Shanstrom,Judgepresiding Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Huppert and Swindlehurst,Livingston,Montana For Respondent: Robert L. Jovick,Livingston,Montana

Submitted on briefs: April 22, 1982 Decided: September 23, 1982 

## .SEF23

## 1982 Filed. 

# a?-!. -+f.bv~itta

# r)- 

# -.~/w+ 

# v 4 ClerkMr. JusticeFrank B. Morrison, Jr., delivered the Opinion of the Court. Defendant appeals from a judgment entered on jury verdict by the Sixth Judicial District Court, Park County, Montana. We affirm. Plaintiff brought an action alleging defendant negligently failed to close a farm gate allowing plaintiff's horses to escape onto a highway where they were subsequently killed. Jury trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff and the sole issue on appeal is whether there is sufficient evidence to support the verdict. InAugust of 1977,defendantwent to plaintiff's farm premises to return a tractor belonging to plaintiff. Itwas necessary for the defendant to pass through two gates on plaintiff'spremises. Plaintiff testified that defendant told him that he did not expressly remember shutting the gates, but that he did not remember leaving them open. Plaintiff'swife testified that defendant admitted leaving a gate open, but she did not remember any specific language attributable to the defendant. Defendant disputed the testimony of plaintiff's wife. Themorning following the day when defendantwent to plaintiff's premises, two of plaintiff's horses were found dead on or near the highway, abutting plaintiff's farmstead. The two boys that had accompanied defendant to plaintiff's premises testified positively that defendant had closed the gates. The issue presented for resolution iswhether under plaintiff's proof an issue was created for the jury on liability. We hold that therewas evidence fromwhich the jurymight infer that plaintiff's horses escaped as the result of

### defendant's negligence in leaving the gates open. The jury need not have believed the testimony of the boys who accompanied the defendant on the day in question. Jacques v. Montana National Guard (1982), Mont. I 

### P.2d 

## , 39 St.Rep. 1565, 1572. The jury could have believed the testimony of plaintiff's wife that defendant admitted leaving the gates open. There was the further circumstantial evidence that the horses were found dead near the roadway on the day following defendant's visitation. This Courtmust view the evidence in the lightmost favorable to the prevailing party. Gunnels v. Hoyt (1981), Mont. 

## , 633 P.2d 1187, 38 St.Rep. 1492, 1495. Where there is substantial credible evidence to support a jury verdict, it cannotbe overturned on the basis of insufficiency. Nelson v. Hartman (1982), Mont. -1 

### - P.2d 

## , 39 St.Rep. 1409;Jacquesv. Montana National Guard, supra. We affirm.

Justice
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 27, 2013

h1120 

# Order

Clerk November 27, 2013

147287 & (26)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 147287

COA: 315426

Washtenaw CC: 11

- 001133

- FH

LOVOTNY CEDRIC SHANNON,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 2, 2013 order of

the Court of Appeals is considere d, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that

the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion for an evidentiary

hearing is DENIED.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

# AGENCY:

Small Business Administration.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting cancellation.

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) announces that the planned meeting on February 12, 2025, of the National Small Business Development Center Advisory Board (NSBDCAB) is cancelled.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Rachel Karton, Designated Federal                               ( print page 9353)                            Officer, Office of Small Business Development Centers (OSBDC), SBA, 409 Third Street SW, Washington, DC 20416;                         *Rachel.newman-karton@sba.gov;*                         202-619-1816.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    This meeting was announced in the                     **Federal Register**                     on January 16, 2025, at 90 FR 4827. The cancellation of this meeting is due to SBA administrative priorities. SBA will announce the new date for this meeting in a future                     **Federal Register**                     notice.                

Andrienne Johnson,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 2025-02459 Filed 2-10-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8026-09-P
Benjamin W. FOCHT, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Mark INCH, Secretary, Fla. Dept of Corrections, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-1794

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 21, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2009-1226 PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. RNA CORPORATION,

Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio

in case no. 1:08-CV-565, Judge Thomas M. Rose.

ON MOTION ORDER Upon consideration of the appellant's motion to waive oral argument, IT IS ORDERED THAT: The case is ready for assignment to a calendar. The motion to waive oral argument is deferred for consideration by the merits panel. Copies of this order and the motion shall be transmitted to the merits panel. FOR THE COURT 

# MAY - 7 2009 /s/ Jan Horbaly Date

cc: Peter M. Lancaster, Esq. s8 Jan Horbaly Clerk lee



# d itAL 

# IPA
MAY 7 2009 JAN HORBALY CLERK
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RHONDA LYNAM,

Plaintiff,

v.

JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-00404-WHO 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL UPON 

SETTLEMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 134

The parties to the action, by and through their counsel, have advised the Court that they have 

agreed to a settlement. 

IT IS ORDERED that this matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and any hearings 

scheduled in this matter are VACATED. It is further ordered that if any party certifies to this Court, 

with proper notice to opposing counsel within sixty (60) days from the date below, that settlement has 

not in fact occurred, this order shall be vacated and this cause shall be restored to the calendar for 

further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 21, 2021

______________________________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-00404-WHO Document 135 Filed 10/21/21 Page 1 of 1
| (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 results of operations of the Company. |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: May 13, 2011 | By: /s/ Steve Ye        |
|--------------------|-------------------------|
|               |                    |
|               | Steve Ye                |
|               | Chief Financial Officer |

----
EX-10.2






EXHIBIT 10.2




WAIVER



In consideration for the benefits I will receive as a result of my employer’s participation in the
United States Department of Treasury’s TARP Capital Purchase Program, I hereby voluntarily waive
any claim against the United States or my employer for any changes to my compensation or benefits
that are required to comply with the regulation issued by the Department of the Treasury as
published in the Federal Register on October 20, 2008.



I acknowledge that this regulation may require modification of the compensation, bonus, incentive
and other benefit plans, arrangements, policies and agreements (including so-called “golden
parachute” agreements) that I have with my employer or in which I participate as they relate to the
period the United States holds any equity or debt securities of my employer acquired through the
TARP Capital Purchase Program.



This waiver includes all claims I may have under the laws of the United States or any state related
to the requirements imposed by the aforementioned regulation, including without limitation a claim
for any compensation or other payments I would otherwise receive, any challenge to the process by
which this regulation was adopted and any tort or constitutional claims about the effect of these
regulations on my employment relationship.




	 	 	 	 	 
	Dated: January 16, 2009	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 

      [Executive]
#### MORPHOSYS AG, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CAMBRIDGE ANTIBODY TECHNOLOGY LIMITED, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-1415.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

DECIDED: April 23, 2004.

Mark G. Davis, Principal Attorney, Paul Devinsky, Raphael V. Lupo, Judith L. Toffenetti, Stephanie L. Nagel, of Counsel, McDermott, Will, Washington, DC, Jane J. Choi, of Counsel, Deerfield, IL, Timothy J. Vezeau, of Counsel, Katten, Muchin, David W. Clough, of Counsel, Katten, Muchin Zavis Rosenman, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.

John S. Skilton, Principal Attorney, Heller, Ehrman, Madison, WI, Colin G. Sandercock, of Counsel, Heller, Ehrman, Washington, DC, David J. Harth, of Counsel, Heller, Ehrman, San Francisco, CA, Michelle M. Umberger, of Counsel, Heller, Ehrman, Christopher G. Hanewiez, of Counsel Attorney, Heller, Ehrman, Madison, WI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Before SCHALL, GAJARSA, and PROST, Circuit Judges.

SCHALL, Circuit Judge.

*ORDER*

The parties move jointly to dismiss and remand to the United States District *713Court for the District of Columbia due to settlement.

The parties request that the court “issue an order remanding the case to the district court for further proceedings leading to an agreed dismissal of the complaint and counterclaim with prejudice.” To the extent that the parties seek vacatur of the district court’s judgment, the parties should request that relief *from*the district court. *See U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall P’ship,*513 U.S. 18, 115 S.Ct. 386, 130 L.Ed.2d 233 (1994).

Furthermore, the court notes that it cannot both dismiss and remand the appeal.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion to dismiss is denied.

(2) The motion to remand is granted.

(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.