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NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ISMAEL SANTIAGO AGUIRRE SANCHEZ,

Petitioner,

v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 13

- 71563 Agency No. A091

- 691

- 808

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February, 24, 2016 ** Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges. Ismael Santiago Aguirre

- Sanchez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

MAR 4 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 13

- 71563

(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s findings of fact

. Nagoulko v. INS , 333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir. 2003) . We deny the petition for review. The record does not compel the conclusion that Aguirre

- Sanchez established that his past harms were committed by a group that the Salvadoran government was unable or unwilling to control. See Castro

- Perez v. Gonzales , 409 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005 (f

ailure to report non

- governmental persecution due to belief that police would do nothing did not establish that government was unable or unwilling to control persecutors based on the record in the case ) ; see also Nahrvani v. Gonzales , 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 ( 9th Cir. 2005) (record does not compel a contrary conclusion where “reasonable minds could differ”) . We reject Aguirre

Sanchez’s contention that the agency ignored his testimony in reaching its conclusion. In addition, s ubstantial evidence supports the a gency’s finding that , even acknowledging Aguirre

- Sanchez’s heightened risk of harm, he failed to establish that it is more likely than not that he will be persecuted by gang members if returned to El Salvador

. See Lanza v. Ashcroft , 389 F.3d 917, 93 4

- 3 5 (9th Cir. 2004) ; see also Fakhry v. Mukasey , 524 F.3d 1057, 1066 (9th Cir. 2008) (evidence did not compel a finding that it was more likely than not petitioner would be3 13

- 71563

persecuted)

. Thus, we deny the petition as to Aguirre

- Sanchez’s withholding of removal claim. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Aguirre

- Sanchez’s CAT claim because he failed to establish that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador

. See Silaya v. Mukasey , 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008)

. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       2,465,079              10,798,372
<SECURITIES>                                         0               4,485,470
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,238,550               7,696,134
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,126,524               1,565,291
<INVENTORY>                                     18,477                 571,545
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,348,429              28,879,958
<PP&E>                                      10,274,484              11,306,560
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,313,924               3,467,282
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,854,726              38,932,934
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,543,924              13,128,560
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                       137,837                 135,795
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,321,618              24,516,592
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,854,726              38,932,934
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,499,021              20,548,725
<CGS>                                        4,541,960               8,298,647
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               29,747,359              37,758,435
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          (1,332,617)             (1,255,622)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (22,457,678)            (24,252,735)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                               (22,457,678)            (24,252,735)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (1.64)                  (1.80)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0
        

</TABLE>
1181.

#### Young *v.*Germania Savings Bank.

Motion to vacate judgment, from city court of Atlanta — Judge Eeid. March 21, 1908.

Argued July 15,

Decided November 10, 1908.

*Robert L. Rodgers,*for plaintiff in error.

*Westmoreland Brothers,*contra.

Powell, J

The city court of Atlanta is a court of general common-law jurisdiction. Those exceptions which exist to its jurisdiction, on account of the exclusive jurisdiction of the superior court and of the court of ordinary as to certain causes, render it no less a court of general jurisdiction, as contradistinguished from courts of special jurisdiction.

2. A general appearance and pleading waives all defects in process or service of process. Civil Code, §4981.

*3.*A suit which states that the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff on 77 promissory notes for $10 each, and prays judgment for the principal and interest “of said notes,” is within the jurisdiction of the city court of Atlanta, although only one of the notes is attached as an exhibit, especially when it is alleged that the other 76 notes are substantially in the same form.

4. The city court of Atlanta has jurisdiction of a suit based upon notes given for the purchase-money of land, and praying a general judgment with a special lien upon the land. *Wheatley*v. *Blalock,*82 *Ga.*406 (9 S. E. 168).

5. There was no error in overruling the motion to set aside the judgment, for any of the reasons stated. *Judgment affirmed.*
IIB 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4189 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 9, 2014 

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

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 4000 Leap Road in Hilliard, Ohio, as the 

‘‘Master Sergeant Shawn T. Hannon, Master Sergeant 

Jeffrey J. Rieck and Veterans Memorial Post Office 

Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 4189 RFS

1 SECTION 1. MASTER SERGEANT SHAWN T. HANNON, MAS2 TER SERGEANT JEFFREY J. RIECK AND VET3 ERANS MEMORIAL POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 4000 Leap Road in Hilliard, 

6 Ohio, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Master Ser7 geant Shawn T. Hannon, Master Sergeant Jeffrey J. 

8 Rieck and Veterans Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

9 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg10 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

11 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

12 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Master Sergeant 

13 Shawn T. Hannon, Master Sergeant Jeffrey J. Rieck and 

14 Veterans Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 8, 

2014. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2008107EN.01000401.xml

| 26.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 February 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg, Germany) — Deutsche Shell GmbH v Finanzamt für Großunternehmen in Hamburg

(Case C-293/06) (1)

1

(Freedom of establishment - Taxation of companies - Monetary effects upon the repatriation of start-up capital granted by a company established in one Member State to its permanent establishment in another Member State)

(2008/C 107/05)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Deutsche Shell GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Finanzamt für Großunternehmen in Hamburg

Defendant:

Re:

Preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg — Interpretation of Articles 43 EC and 48 EC — Currency exchange loss incurred by a company established in one Member State at the time of repatriation of the start-up capital which it had granted to a permanent establishment set up in another Member State — Not possible to take that loss into account for purposes of taxation in the Member State in which the company is established

Operative part of the judgment

| 1) | It is contrary to Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment Article 43 EC) in conjunction with Article 58 of the EC Treaty (now Article 48 EC) for a Member State, when determining the national basis of assessment, to exclude a currency loss suffered by a company with a registered office in that State upon the repatriation of start-up capital granted to its permanent establishment in another Member State. |
| --- | --- |

1)

It is contrary to Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment Article 43 EC) in conjunction with Article 58 of the EC Treaty (now Article 48 EC) for a Member State, when determining the national basis of assessment, to exclude a currency loss suffered by a company with a registered office in that State upon the repatriation of start-up capital granted to its permanent establishment in another Member State.

| 2) | It is also contrary to Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) in conjunction with Article 58 of the EC Treaty (now Article 48 EC) for a Member State to allow a currency loss to be deducted as operating expenditure in respect of an undertaking with a registered office in a Member State only in so far as its permanent establishment in another Member State does not make any tax-free profits. |
| --- | --- |

2)

It is also contrary to Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) in conjunction with Article 58 of the EC Treaty (now Article 48 EC) for a Member State to allow a currency loss to be deducted as operating expenditure in respect of an undertaking with a registered office in a Member State only in so far as its permanent establishment in another Member State does not make any tax-free profits.

---

(1)  OJ C 237, 30.9.2006.

1

---
# C_2008197EN.01002303.xml

| 2.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 197/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 197/23

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 June 2008 — European Association of Im- and Exporters of Birds and live Animals and Others v Commission

(Case T-209/06) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - Admissibility - Fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC - Natural and legal persons - Associations - Decision 2006/522/EC - Individual concern - Animal health - Protection measures in relation to avian influenza)

(2008/C 197/41)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicants: European Association of Im- and Exporters of Birds and live Animals (West Maas en Waal, Netherlands); Vereniging van Im- en Exporteurs van Vogels en Hobbydieren (West Maas en Waal, Netherlands); Willem Plomp, trading as Plomps Vogelhandel (Woerden, Netherlands); and Marinus Borgstein, trading as Borgstein Birds & Zoofood Trading (West Maas en Waal, Netherlands) (represented by: J. Wouters, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Erlbacher and M. van Heezik, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/522/EC of 25 July 2006 amending Decisions 2005/759/EC and 2005/760/EC as regards certain protection measures in relation to highly pathogenic avian influenza and movements of certain live birds into the Community (OJ 2006 L 205, p. 28).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | The applicants shall pay the costs, including those relating to the application for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicants shall pay the costs, including those relating to the application for interim measures.

---

(1)  OJ C 249, 14.10.2006.

1

---
Exhibit 10.1






EXHIBIT 10.1
 
	
		
	 
	Invibio®
biomedical solutions
Invibio  LTD
Technology Centre Hillhouse International
Thornton Cleveleys. Lancashire FY5 4QD UK
Tel. +44 (0)1253 866812 Tel +44 (0)1253 851458
info@invibio.com                         www.invibio.com




17th July 2014


LDR Medical
Technopole de L'Aube
BP 2-10 902
Troyes cedex 9
France


Dear Sirs,


Letter of Amendment in respect of Supply Agreement between Invibio Ltd. and LDR Medical dated January 31 2003 and subsequent Amendments (the "Agreement").


Following our discussions we are writing to confirm that pursuant to section 27.1 of the Agreement we have agreed to make the following amendment to the Agreement:


		
	1.
	Clause 3 of the Agreement shall be amended such that the Term of the Agreement shall be extended until the 31st of August 2014 inclusive. 




All capitalized terms used in this Letter shall have the same meaning as when used in the Agreement.


This letter and all matters arising from or connected with it are governed by English Law.


Except as expressly provided in this letter of amendment, all other terms, conditions, and provisions of the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect as provided therein. 


	
			
	 
	 
	 

	/s/ John Devine
	 
	/s/ Eric Vigneron

	An authorised signatory for and on behalf of Invibio, Ltd.
	 
	An authorised signatory for and on behalf of LDR Medical

	 
	 
	 

	Name: John Devine
	 
	Name: Eric Vigneron

	Position: Emerging Business Director
	 
	Position: Deputy General Manager

	Date: July 24, 2014
	 
	Date: July 24, 2014
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed May 

21, 2019.

In The 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-19-00379-CV

IN RE YOUSEF ELDIRAOUI, Relator 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING 

WRIT OF MANDAMUS 

 240th District Court 

Fort Bend County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 17-DCV-247500 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

On May 9, 2019, relator Yousef Eldiraoui filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (Supp.); see also Tex. 

R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to compel the Honorable Frank 

J. Frayley, presiding judge of the 240th District Court of Fort Bend County, to vacate 
2 

his March 5, 2019 order on Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Compel Discovery 

Responses, in which the judge overruled all of relator’s objections to the discovery 

requests at issue.

Relator also filed a motion asking our court to stay all proceedings in the trial 

court pending this court’s decision on his petition for mandamus relief. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 52.10. 

With certain exceptions not applicable in this proceeding, to obtain mandamus 

relief, a relator must show both that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and 

that the relator has no adequate remedy at law, such as an appeal. In re Prudential 

Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). Relator has 

not established that he is entitled to mandamus relief. We therefore deny relator’s 

petition for writ of mandamus and motion for stay. 

PER CURIAM 

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Spain and Poissant.
Nies v. Town of Emerald Isle

409PA15-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 3, 2016

J. David Breemer, Attorney at Law, Keith P. Anthony, Attorney at Law, Durham, For Nies, Gregory P., et al.

Brian E. Edes, Attorney at Law, Wilmington, Norwood P. Blanchard, III, Attorney at Law, For Town of Emerald Isle.

Elliot M. Engstrom, Attorney at Law, For Civitas Institute Center for Law and Freedom.

Stephanie H. Autry, Attorney at Law, George B. Autry, Jr., Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Robert H. Thomas, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, For Owners' Counsel of America, et al.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 2nd of June 2016 by Defendant:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd of June 2016."

Defendant shall have up to and including the 27th day of July 2016 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
# C_2015384EN.01000201.xml

| 18.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 384/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 384/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

17 November 2015

(2015/C 384/02)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0670 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 131,49 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4613 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,70170 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3243 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0806 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,2370 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,031 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 311,64 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2475 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4375 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,0593 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4960 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4200 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,2700 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6447 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5175 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 247,07 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 15,1915 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 6,8045 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6065 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 646,25 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6861 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 50,339 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 69,8710 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,365 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,0684 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,8880 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 70,4322 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0670

JPY

Japanese yen

131,49

DKK

Danish krone

7,4613

GBP

Pound sterling

0,70170

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3243

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0806

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,2370

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,031

HUF

Hungarian forint

311,64

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2475

RON

Romanian leu

4,4375

TRY

Turkish lira

3,0593

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4960

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4200

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,2700

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6447

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5175

KRW

South Korean won

1 247,07

ZAR

South African rand

15,1915

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

6,8045

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6065

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 646,25

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6861

PHP

Philippine peso

50,339

RUB

Russian rouble

69,8710

THB

Thai baht

38,365

BRL

Brazilian real

4,0684

MXN

Mexican peso

17,8880

INR

Indian rupee

70,4322

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
1 The Honorable Harold D. Vietor, United St ates District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 07-3363

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Southern * District of Iowa. Jose Lopez-Rodriguez, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: February 5, 2009 Filed: February 25, 2009

___________ Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. A jury found Jose Lopez-Rodriguez gu ilty of illegally reentering the United States after having been deported. The district court 1 sentenced him to 63 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release. On appeal, counsel has moved to withdraw, and in a brief filed unde r Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), he argues that (1) the district court erred in a dding language to the theory-of-d efense instruction, and (2) the sentence was unreasonable. We affirm.-2- The only issue at trial was whether Lopez-Rodriguez had previously been deported. He requested an instruction info rming the jury that illegal reentry required proof that he had been previously physically removed from the United States. The court agreed to give the instruction, but added language--ove r Lopez-Rodriguez’s objection--indicating that the jury should consider all of the evidence, and that the government was not required to present a witness to testif y that he or she personally watched the defendant cross the border into Mexico. The district court did not abuse its discretion in adding the foregoing langu age to the jury instruction. SeeUnited States v. Aleman , 548 F.3d 1158, 1166 (8th Cir. 2008) (this court reviews jury instructions for abuse of discretion and w ill affirm so long as instructions, taken as whole, fairly and adequately submitted i ssues to jury); United States v. Davis , 534 F.3d 903, 913 (8th Cir. 2008) (government’s case may be based on circumstantial evidence), petition for cert. filed , (U.S. Jan. 15, 2009) (No. 08-8267).
We also find that the sentence, which wa s at the bottom of the Guidelines range, was not unreasonable. SeeUnited States v. Bonahoom , 484 F.3d 1003, 1005 (8th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (reasonableness of senten ce is reviewed for abuse of discretion); United States v. Lincoln , 413 F.3d 716, 717 (8th Cir. 2005) (sentence within advisory Guidelines range is presumptively reasonabl e on appeal). The district court properly discussed the factors it was to considerin imposing the sentence and carefully weighed those factors. SeeUnited States v. Boss , 493 F.3d 986, 987 (8th Cir. 2007) (discussing abuse-of-discretion standard).
Having reviewed the record i ndependently under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we have found no non-frivolous issues. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. We also grant counsel’s moti on to withdraw on the condition that counsel inform appellant about the procedures for filing petitions for rehearing and for certiorari.

______________________________