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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUAN ADRIAN QUIM-GONON, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 15-70570 

Agency No. A089-840-033 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 7, 2019**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Juan Adrian Quim-Gonon, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for 

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal 

from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, 

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture 

(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo

* 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

AUG 26 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-70570 

questions of law. Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008). We 

review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 

453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and grant in part the 

petition for review, and we remand.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Quim-Gonon failed 

to establish he was or would be persecuted on account of a protected ground. 

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”). Our conclusion is not affected 

by the differing nexus standards applicable to asylum and withholding of removal 

claims. Cf. Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 360 (9th Cir. 2017) 

(discussing Zetino v. Holder having drawn no distinction between the standards 

where there was no nexus at all to a protected ground). Thus, Quim-Gonon’s 

asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. 

The BIA erred in finding that Quim-Gonon did not meaningfully raise his 

CAT claim before the IJ. Quim-Gonon’s asylum application, declaration, and prehearing statement identified his fear of torture. See Pirir-Boc v. Holder, 750 F.3d 

1077, 1086 n.9 (9th Cir. 2014) (“[A] CAT claim is sufficiently raised when an 

alien declares his fear of future torture on his asylum application and provides 

supporting evidence during the removal hearing.”). The agency also erred by not 
3 15-70570 

considering Quim-Gonon’s country condition evidence as it related to his CAT 

claim. See Aguilar-Ramos v. Holder, 594 F.3d 701, 705 (9th Cir. 2010). Thus, we 

grant the petition for review and remand Quim-Gonon’s CAT claim to the agency 

for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 

U.S. 12, 16-18 (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.
**Exhibit 10.27**

 

Description of Compensation of Non-Employee Directors 

 

The description below contains only certain information regarding the compensation of the non-employee directors of Sunterra Corporation.Additional information can be found in our proxy statements, reports, and other exhibits filed by us with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 

 

Effective with the first quarter of fiscal 2005, each non-employee director of Sunterra Corporation is entitled to an annual retention fee of $30,000 in addition to a feeof $1,250 per in person meeting of the board of directors, a fee of $1,250 for the annual meeting and a fee of $750 per telephonic meeting of the board of directors. An additional annual fee of $4,000 is paid to non-employee directors for eachcommittee membership, a fee of $500 per meeting of the committee and an additional $5,000 for serving as the chairman of any committee (except for the audit committee chairman who receives $10,000). The non-executive chairman is also entitled to anannual fee of $15,000 (increased to $30,000 per annum effective October 1, 2005). Each non-employee director is also entitled to an annual grant of stock-based compensation equivalent to $40,000 to be issued in advance on the first day of the fiscalyear. 

 

A director who is also an employee of Sunterra Corporation does notreceive additional compensation for service as a director. 

 

SunterraCorporation pays for or reimburses its directors’ travel, lodging and other reasonable out-of-pocket expenses in connection with attendance at board, committee and stockholder meetings, and for other reasonable expenses related to board servicesuch as continuing education.
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).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

TOMMY MCINTOSH, Jr.,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 09-10155

D.C. No. 5:08-CR-00377-RMW-1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Ronald M. Whyte, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 3, 2010** 

San Francisco, California

Before: HUG, BEEZER and HALL, Circuit Judges.

Defendant-appellant Tommy McIntosh, Jr. (“McIntosh”) appeals from a

final judgment convicting him of one count of being a felon in possession of a

firearm and ammunition. McIntosh was found guilty of the crime after a one-day

FILED

JUN 16 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

bench trial, and the district court sentenced him to 108 months imprisonment. We

have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The facts of this case are known to the parties. We do not repeat them.

I

We review “all sentencing decisions” for an abuse of discretion. United

States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

II

The district court acted well within its discretion by sentencing McIntosh to

108 months imprisonment, 12 months below the statutory maximum. Contrary to

McIntosh’s assertions, the district court engaged in a “thorough and thoughtful

consideration of the § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Cabaccang, 481 F.3d

1176, 1188 (9th Cir. 2007). In reaching its decision, the district court explicitly

acknowledged McIntosh’s “unfortunate upbringing” and struggles with alcohol

abuse. Given McIntosh’s involvement with gangs and pervasive and violent

criminal history, the district court acted within its discretion in ordering an above

guidelines sentence “to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct” and “to

protect the public from further crimes of the defendant.” 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a)(2)(B) and (C). 

AFFIRMED.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-41257

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LION SARMIENTO,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 9:00-CR-11-ALL

--------------------

June 14, 2001

Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Lion Sarmiento appeals his sentence following a guilty-plea

conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Sarmiento argues that the

district court erred in increasing his base offense level by four

levels pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5). 

Section 2K2.1(b)(5) provides for a four-level sentencing

increase “[if] the defendant used or possessed any firearm or

ammunition in connection with another felony offense . . . .” 

The district court found that Sarmiento sold marijuana to
No. 00-41257

-2-

undercover police officers in his home, and that law enforcement

agents subsequently found two functional firearms, ammunition for

those firearms, and a large quantity of marijuana in Sarmiento’s

home. Although the firearms and the large quantity of marijuana

were located in different rooms of the house, the firearms “were

possessed” by Sarmiento and “could have been used to facilitate”

his drug-related activities. United States v. Armstead, 114 F.3d

504, 512 (5th Cir. 1997) (citing United States v. Condren, 18

F.3d 1190, 1194-98 (5th Cir. 1994)). Therefore, the district

court did not err in increasing Sarmiento’s base offense level

under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5). Accordingly, the district court’s

judgment is

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 32.02

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL 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 Quarterly Report of Transmeta Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark R.
Kent, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my
knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

      (2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and result of operations
            of the Company for the periods presented therein.

Date: November 8, 2004                     By: /s/ MARK R. KENT
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Chief Financial Officer,
                                           Transmeta Corporation

      A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Transmeta Corporation and will be retained by Transmeta
Corporation and furnished to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
JEMEZ RIVER BELOW JEMEZ CANYON DAM, NMLatitude: 35.39Longitude: -106.535Elevation: 5109

JEMEZ RIVER BELOW JEMEZ CANYON DAM, NM

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Vacas Locas Site Page...



Vacas Locas

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Garita Peak Site Page...



Garita Peak

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Quemazon Site Page...



Quemazon

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Senorita Divide #2 Site Page...



Senorita Divide #2
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 170 (Tuesday, September 7, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50144-50145]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19152]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Center for Advancing Translational 
Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; National Center for Advancing 
Translational Sciences Special Emphasis Panel.
    Date: October 7, 2021.
    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, 
National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Room 1037, 
Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Nakia C. Brown, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Office of Grants Management and Scientific Review, National 
Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of 
Health, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Room 1037, Bethesda,

[[Page 50145]]

MD 20817, 301-827-4905, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0e6c7c617960606f6d4e636f67622060676620696178"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="92f0e0fde5fcfcf3f1d2fff3fbfebcfcfbfabcf5fde4">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.859, 
Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Research; 93.350, 
B--Cooperative Agreements; 93.859, Biomedical Research and Research 
Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: August 31, 2021.
David W. Freeman,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-19152 Filed 9-3-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 15, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 51355]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19922]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Notice of Agreement Filed

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following 
agreement under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit 
comments, relevant information, or documents regarding the agreement to 
the Secretary by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3f6c5a5c4d5a4b5e4d467f59525c11585049"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2675434554435247545f66404b4508414950">[email protected]</span></a>, or by mail, Federal 
Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573. Comments will be most 
helpful to the Commission if received within 12 days of the date this 
notice appears in the Federal Register. Copies of agreement are 
available through the Commission's website (www.fmc.gov) or by 
contacting the Office of Agreements at (202) 523-5793 or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7602041712131718171a0f051f0536101b1558111900"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5c282e3d38393d323d30252f352f1c3a313f723b332a">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Agreement No.: 201372.
    Agreement Name: Liberty/Wallenius Wilhelmsen Ocean/Eukor Car 
Carriers Space Charter Agreement.
    Parties: Eukor Car Carriers, Inc.; Liberty Global Logistics LLC; 
And Wallenius Wilhelmsen Ocean AS.
    Filing Party: Wayne Rohde; Cozen O'Connor.
    Synopsis: The agreement would authorize the parties to charter 
space to/from one another on an ``as needed/as available'' basis in all 
trades in the foreign commerce of the United States.
    Proposed Effective Date: 10/22/2021.
    Location: https://www2.fmc.gov/FMC.Agreements.Web/Public/AgreementHistory/50508.

    Dated: September 10, 2021.
Rachel E. Dickon,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-19922 Filed 9-14-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-02-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       4,229,876
<SECURITIES>                                17,708,938
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,737,207
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (80,000)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            28,737,250
<PP&E>                                       2,061,528
<DEPRECIATION>                               (834,569)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              30,156,081
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,796,371
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,210
<OTHER-SE>                                  24,350,500
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                30,156,081
<SALES>                                      9,657,074
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,112,470
<CGS>                                        2,334,841
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,777,629
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            10,251,491
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (979,607)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (979,607)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (979,607)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Steven Douglas, Respondent.

*816On October 21, 1983, at approximately 4:30 a.m., the police observed the defendant and another man carrying two plastic garbage bags out of an alleyway. When the police approached the two men and identified themselves, one of the men dropped the bag he was carrying and fled. The other man was the defendant who also dropped the bag he was carrying and attempted to flee, but he was detained by one of the officers who noticed a bulge in the defendant’s sock and removed a screwdriver therefrom. The officer then looked into the bag the defendant had been carrying and observed a computer display monitor. The other officer then approached with the bag dropped by the man who had fled. When he observed that the computer parts contained in that bag matched the computer monitor in the bag carried by the defendant, he said, "[g]ee, I wonder where this came from”. The defendant responded that "they came from a garbage can on the corner. Come on, I’ll show you”. The defendant was arrested and brought to the precinct where he received *Miranda*warnings for the first time and made another statement.

After a hearing, Criminal Term suppressed both the physical evidence found in the bag carried by the defendant and his statements.

Under the totality of the circumstances, the limited intrusion of the police officer in looking into the bag the defendant had dropped was an appropriate and reasonable response to the officers’ observations. "The reasonableness standard contemplates and permits a flexible set of escalating police responses, provided only that they remain reasonably related in scope and intensity to the information the officer initially has, and to the information he gathers as his encounter with the citizen unfolds” *(People v Finlayson,*76 AD2d 670, 675, *lv denied*51 NY2d 1011, *cert denied*450 US 931).

The facts that this encounter took place at approximately 4:30 a.m., the defendant’s companion immediately dropped his bag and fled when the police approached, the defendant attempted to flee and dropped his bag, and a. bulge was observed in the defendant’s sock, which turned out to be a screwdriver, a potential burglar’s tool, have the cumulative effect of justifying the police officer’s actions in opening the bag the defendant had been carrying as reasonable and proper under the circumstances. Therefore, the physical evidence discovered should not have been suppressed.

Insofar as the admissibility of the defendant’s statements is concerned, his statement at the arrest scene may not be *817considered spontaneous because it was triggered by the conduct of the police *(see, People v Lynes,*49 NY2d 286, 295). Since the statement made by the defendant at the precinct after having been read his *Miranda*rights followed the previous statement by less than half an hour with no attenuation between the two, that statement was also properly suppressed *(see, People v Bethea,*67 NY2d 364). Niehoff, J. P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.
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.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Indian Affairs

          - [212A2100DD/AAKC001030/A0A501010.999900253G]

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice publishes the approval of the Third Amendment to the Tribal-State Compact (Amendment) for Class III Gaming between the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (Colville Tribe) and the State of Washington (State) and the Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe of the Shoalwater Bay Indian Reservation (Shoalwater Bay Tribe) and the State of Washington.

# DATES:

The Amendment takes effect on September 15, 2021.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Paula L. Hart, Director, Office of Indian Gaming, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary—Policy and Economic Development, Washington, DC 20240, *paula.hart@bia.gov,* (202) 219-4066.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Under section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2701*et seq.,* the Secretary of the Interior shall publish in the **Federal Register** notice of approved Tribal-State compacts for the purpose of engaging in Class III gaming activities on Indian lands. As required by 25 CFR 293.4, all compacts and amendments are subject to review and approval by the Secretary. The Amendment authorizes each Tribe to engage in sports wagering at the respective Tribe's class III gaming facilities, updates each Compact to reflect this change in various sections, and incorporates Appendix S, Sports Wagering. The Amendment is approved.

Bryan Newland,

Assistant Secretary, Indian Affairs.

[FR Doc. 2021-19842 Filed 9-14-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4337-15-P