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NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT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

Petitioner,

v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 12

- 73428 Agency No. A088

- 463

- 496

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 16 , 2016 ** Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON , Circuit Judges. Wenqiang Xu , a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigrat ion judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We

* 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 24 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 12

- 7 3428

have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantia l evidence the agency’s factual findings

. Zehatye v. Gonzalez , 453 F.3 d 1182, 1184

- 85 (9th Cir.
2006 ) . We deny the petition for review. We do not consider new evidence that was not part of the record before the
agency. See Fisher v . INS , 79 F.3d 955, 963

- 64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc). The record does not compel the conclusion that the mistreatment Xu suffered in China rose to the level of past persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales , 454 F.3d 1014, 1019

- 21 (9th Cir. 2006) (arrest, beating, interrogation, and three

- day detention for illegal house church activity did not ris e to the level of persecution); see also INS v. Elias

- Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1 (1992) ( “[t] o reverse the BIA finding [the court] must find that the evidence not onl y supports that conclusion, but compels it ”) (emphasis in original). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Xu did not establish a well

- founded fear of future persecution. See id . at 1021

- 22; Hakeem v. INS , 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th C ir. 2001) (claim of future persecution weakened when similarly

- situated family members continue to live in the country without incident) . Thus, we deny the petition as to Xu’s asylum claim.
Because Xu did not establish eligibility for asylum, his withhold ing of3 12

- 7 3428

removal claim necessarily fails. See Zehatye , 453 F.3d at 1190. Finally, s ubsta ntial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Xu failed to establish that he would more li kely than not be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of a government official if returned to China

. See Zheng v. Holder , 644 F.3d at 829, 835

- 36 (9 th Cir. 2011)

. PETITION FOR REVIEW D ENIED.
**Exhibit 99.2**

 

**CHIEF FINANCIALOFFICER CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANTTO**

**SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

Richard J. Kaplan, asChief Financial Officer of DeCrane Holdings Co., a Delaware corporation (the“Company”), hereby certifies that:

 

(1)          The Company’s periodic report on Form 10-K for theperiod ended December 31, 2002 (the “Form 10-K”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended; and

 

(2)          The information contained in the Form 10-K fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 
| April 15, 2003 | By:    | /s/  Richard J. Kaplan                       |
|----------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------|
|           | Name:  | Richard J. Kaplan                                 |
|           | Title: | Chief Financial Officer  and  Assistant Secretary |

 

 

**A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to DeCrane Holdings Co. andwill be retained by DeCrane Holdings Co. and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.**

 

**This certification is being submittedto the Securities and Exchange Commission solely for the purpose of complyingwith Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.  This certification shall not to be deemed“filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended (the “Exchange Act”), or otherwise subject to the liability of thatsection.  This certification does notconstitute a part of Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K accompanying thiscertification and to which it is an exhibit.**

 

----
1034.

#### Jones *v.*The State.

Accusation of larceiw, from city court of Macon — Judge Hodges. February 3, 1908.

Argued March 31,

Decided April 22, 1908.

*Augustin Daly,*for plaintiff in error.

*William Brunson, solicitor-general, Boland Ellis,*contra.

Hill, C. J.

1. Whether the explanation which the accused makes of his possession of property recently stolen is sufficient to rebut the inference of guilt arising from such possession is a question to he determined solely by the jury.

2. No error of law is complained of, and the verdict approved by the trial court will not be disturbed. *Judgment affirmed.*
SEC Exhibit








Exhibit 10.5
AMENDMENT NO. 4
TO
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
The Employment Agreement made and entered into effective October 9, 2006, by and between Perrigo Company, a Michigan corporation (the “Company”) and Joseph C. Papa (the “Executive”), as amended by Amendment No. 1 effective as of November 12, 2015, Amendment No. 2 effective as of October 22, 2015 and Amendment No. 3 (“Amendment No. 3”) effective as of April 24, 2016 (collectively the “Agreement”) is hereby further amended by this Amendment No. 4 effective as of May 6, 2016.
WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive entered into Amendment No. 3 effective as of April 24, 2016 in recognition of Executive’s desire to terminate his employment with the Company and his service as a member and Chair of its Board of Directors; and
WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive desire to correct a typographical error in Amendment No. 3.
NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is acknowledged, the Executive and the Company agree as follows:
1.Clause (C) of the first sentence of Paragraph 6(c)(ii) of the Agreement (“Non-Compete”) is amended by substituting the phrase “does not exceed” for the word “exceeds” therein.  For the avoidance of doubt, Clause (C) now reads as follows: 


“(C) any product that is under development by Valeant as of April 24, 2016, provided that, if such product is covered under ¶ 6(c)(i) (a “New Competitive Product”), the aggregate revenue in any 12 month period during the Non-Compete Period from all New Competitive Products does not exceed $25 million,” 
2.Except as expressly provided herein, the Agreement shall remain unaltered and of full force and effect.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment to the Employment Agreement has been duly executed by the parties as of the date written above.
	
			
	EXECUTIVE
	 
	PERRIGO COMPANY

	 
	 
	 

	By: _/s/ Joseph C. Papa________________
	 
	By: _/s/ Ellen R. Hoffing_______________

	Joseph C. Papa
	 
	Ellen R. Hoffing
Charles S. TURNER, et al., petitioners, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 15-1503.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 14, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals is granted limited to the following question: "Whether the petitioners' convictions must be set aside under *Brady v. Maryland,*373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963)." The case is consolidated and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument.
EXHIBIT 5

                                  June 23, 2000


Howell Corporation
1111 Fannin Street, Suite 1500
Houston, Texas 77002

Ladies and Gentlemen:

We have acted as  counsel to Howell  Corporation,  a Delaware  corporation  (the
"Company"),  in  connection  with the proposed  issuance by the Company of up to
1,039,076  shares (the  "Shares")  of Common  Stock,  $1.00 par value,  upon the
exercise of options  granted to  participants  in the  Company's  Omnibus  Stock
Awards and Incentive Plan and the Company's  Nonqualified  Stock Option Plan for
Non-Employee Directors  (collectively,  the "Plans"). The Company is filing with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission (the "Commission")  under the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended,  a  Registration  Statement on Form S-8 relating to the
Shares (the "Registration Statement").

We have examined  originals or copies of (i) the Certificate of Incorporation of
the Company, as amended,  (ii) the Bylaws of the Company, as amended,  (iii) the
Plans, (iv) certain resolutions of the Board of Directors of the Company and (v)
such other  documents  and records as we have deemed  necessary and relevant for
purposes hereof. In addition,  we have relied on certificates of officers of the
Company as to certain  matters of fact  relating  to this  opinion and have made
such  investigations  of law as we have deemed necessary and relevant as a basis
hereof.

We have assumed the  genuineness  of all  signatures,  the  authenticity  of all
documents, certificates and records submitted to us as originals, the conformity
to original documents,  certificates and records of all documents,  certificates
and records submitted to us as copies, and the truthfulness of all statements of
fact contained therein.



<PAGE>


Based upon the  foregoing and subject to the  limitations  and  assumptions  set
forth  herein and having  due  regard for such legal  considerations  as we deem
relevant,  we are of the  opinion  that the  Shares  have been duly and  validly
authorized  and when  issued  and paid for in  accordance  with the terms of the
Plan,  for a  consideration  at least  equal to the par value  thereof,  will be
validly issued, fully paid and nonassessable.

The foregoing opinion is based on and is limited to the General  Corporation Law
of the State of Delaware and the  relevant law of the United  States of America,
and we render no opinion with respect to the law of any other  jurisdiction.  We
hereby consent to the filing of this opinion with the Commission as Exhibit 5 to
the Registration Statement.


                                Very truly yours,

                                /s/ Bracewell & Patterson, L.L.P.
                                ---------------------------------
                                Bracewell & Patterson, L.L.P.
Jose Israel GARCIA-TICAS, petitioner, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 16-6672.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
General Philip HAYMON, petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 16-6381.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of California, San Joaquin County, Appellate Department denied.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.2



                               RIVIANA FOODS INC.


                                 P. O. Box 2636
                              Houston, Texas 77252

                                                       Telephone: (713) 529-3251
                                                             Fax: (713) 529-1866

                                February 1, 2001


Mr. Charles R. Godchaux
800 Homeplace
Abbeville, Louisiana 70510

         Re:  AMENDMENT TO CONSULTING AGREEMENT

Dear Charles:

         The purpose of this letter is to amend the Consulting Agreement between
you and the Company dated July 1, 1994.

         Effective as of February 1, 2001, the rate paid by the Company to you
as set forth in paragraph 2. of the Agreement shall be $45,000 per year.

         All other terms of the Consulting Agreement shall remain in full force
and effect.

         Please indicate your agreement by signing and returning a copy to me.

                                                Yours very truly,

                                                RIVIANA FOODS INC.


                                                By: /s/ Joseph A. Hafner, Jr.
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                    Joseph A. Hafner, Jr.
                                                    President


The foregoing agreement is
hereby accepted and agreed.

/s/ Charles R. Godchaux
--------------------------------
Charles R. Godchaux, Consultant
Cassandra STEVENSON, Personal Representative of the Estate of Anthony Stevenson, Deceased, petitioner, v. Clay MOHON, et al.

No. 15-1383.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Kentucky denied.
1396.

#### Williams *v.*The State.

Russell, J.

1. A motion in arrest of judgment is not the proper mode of presenting to the attention of the court errors in overruling a motion for continuance, or in allowing a separation of the jury. A motion in arrest of judgment must be predicated upon some defect appearing on the face of the record or pleadings.

2. The overruling of a demurrer is not a proper ground of a motion for new trial. The objection to the overruling of a demurrer to an indictment or accusation must be preserved by exceptions pendente lite, unless the main bill of exceptions, containing this assignment of error, be certified within twenty days after the demurrer is overruled.

3. It is not error to overrule a ground of a motion for new trial which is predicated upon newly discovered evidence merely impeaching in its character. Even if the affidavits in support of this ground had not *854been merely impeaching, it does not appear but that the exercise of ordinary diligence would have secured the evidence alleged to have been newly discovered, inasmuch as the affiants had been subpoenaed by the movant, and were present in court during the trial.

Accusation of unlawful sale of liquor, from city court of Fitzgerald — Judge Jay. July 12, 1908.

Submitted October 8,

Decided October 12, 1908.

*E. Wall, Bull &*Reid, for plaintiff in error.

*O. H. Elkins, solicitor, McDonald & Quincey,*contra.

*Judgment affirmed.*
John FANNING, petitioner, v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

No. 16-397.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
Stuart Lee HOOD, petitioner v. Ronda PASH, Warden.

No. 16-6717.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       1,433,978
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,433,978
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           40,107
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,393,871
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,433,978
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                30,606
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 732
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (31,338)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (31,338)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (31,338)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.18)



</TABLE>
II-01048

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Greg Cook <cookgg@gmail.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 8:48 AM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Greg Cook

407 Shore

Oldsmar, FL 34677
Exhibit 32.1



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  Annual Report of Golden Spirit Gaming Ltd.(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),



I,Carlton Parfitt, 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 requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



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



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this amended certification as of the 30th day of March 2006.



/s/ Carlton Parfit

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

Carlton Parfit

Director
<PAGE>   1


                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1


                          MIGRATEC, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY

                       Computations of Net Loss Per Share

The following table sets forth the computation of basic and diluted loss per
share as calculated in accordance with FASB 128.


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                        For the three months ended
                                                                               March 31,
                                                                    ---------------------------------
                                                                        2000                 1999
                                                                    ------------         ------------
<S>                                                                 <C>                  <C>
Numerator:
   Numerator for basic and diluted loss per share -
   Net loss                                                         $ (4,225,090)        $   (782,808)
                                                                    ============         ============

Denominator:
   Denominator for basic loss per share -
   Weighted average shares                                            74,983,972           45,243,109

Effect of dilutive securities:
   Stock options and warrants                                                 --                   --


   Dilutive potential common shares                                           --                   --
                                                                    ------------         ------------

   Denominator for diluted earnings per share -
   adjusted weighted average shares and assumed
   conversions                                                        74,983,972           45,243,109
                                                                    ============         ============

   Basic loss per share                                             $    (0.0563)        $    (0.0173)
                                                                    ============         ============
   Diluted loss per share                                           $    (0.0563)        $    (0.0173)
                                                                    ============         ============
</TABLE>


As MigraTEC incurred a net loss for the three months ended March 31, 2000 and
1999, there were no adjustments for potentially dilutive securities as the
adjustments would have been anti-dilutive.




                                       26