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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUVENAL TABOADA-BAHENA,

Petitioner,

 v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 16-70490

Agency No. A200-198-476

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 12, 2019** 

Pasadena, California

Before: GRABER, BERZON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

We lack jurisdiction to review discretionary denials of cancellation of

removal and voluntary departure. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), 1229b, 1229c. We

do have jurisdiction to review “colorable” legal and constitutional claims, which

FILED

NOV 20 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* 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).
we review de novo. Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.

2005); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D).

Here, Taboada-Bahena incorrectly argues that the Immigration Judge (“IJ”)

and the Board did not deny his requested relief as an exercise of discretion. To the

extent that Taboada-Bahena raises due process challenges to the admission of the I213's and his inability to cross-examine the preparers of those forms, his arguments

fail. He raised no objection to the forms when they were admitted by the IJ, and he

has not overcome the presumption that the forms were reliable. Espinoza v. INS,

45 F.3d 308, 310 (9th Cir. 1995).

As there are no cognizable legal or constitutional claims, we lack

jurisdiction over the discretionary denial of relief, which is independently

dispositive. We therefore do not reach the question whether Taboada-Bahena was

disqualified. 

DISMISSED.

2
STATE v. Marcus Marcel SMITH

290A17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 28, 2017

Jason C. Yoder, Attorney at Law, for Smith, Marcus Marcel.

Adrian Dellinger, Associate Attorney General, Teresa M. Postell, Assistant Attorney General, James R. O'Neill, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney General.

*165The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 28th of August 2017 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of August 2017."
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 Eternal Energy Corp. on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Bradley M. Colby, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1.
The Report 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 result of operations of the Company.





August 18, 2011





/s/ Bradley M. Colby


Bradley M. Colby


President and Chief Executive Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 32**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Netlist, Inc., aDelaware corporation (“Netlist”) for the quarter ended October 2, 2010(the “Report”), Chun K. Hong, president, chief executive officer and chairmanof the board of Netlist, and Gail M. Sasaki, vice president and chief financialofficer of Netlist, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his or her knowledge:

 

(1)           the Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

(2)           the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of Netlist, Inc.

 
| November 16,  2010 |   | /s/  Chun K. Hong                                             |
|-------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------|
|                    |   | Chun  K. Hong                                                 |
|                    |   | President,  Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board |
|                    |   | (Principal  Executive Officer)                                |
|                    |   |                                                          |
|                    |   |                                                          |
| November 16,  2010 |   | /s/  Gail M. Sasaki                                           |
|                    |   | Gail  M. Sasaki                                               |
|                    |   | Vice  President and Chief Financial Officer                   |
|                    |   | (Principal  Financial Officer)                                |

 

----
STATE of North Carolina v. Adam Robert JACKSON

No. 397A16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Filed December 8, 2017

Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General, by Joseph A. Newsome, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender, by Jillian C. Katz, Assistant Appellate Defender, for defendant-appellant.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.
BLMN-6.29.14_EX10.7


Exhibit 10.7
David Deno




OSI RESTAURANT PARTNERS, LLC
Amendment to Officer Employment Agreement


THIS AMENDMENT TO OFFICER EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (“Amendment”) is entered into by and between OSI RESTAURANT PARNTERS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company  (the “Company”) and DAVID DENO (the “Employee”), and executed this 16th  day of July 2014.


WHEREAS, Company employed Employee as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company pursuant to that certain Officer Employment Agreement dated May 7, 2012 (the “Employment Agreement”); and 


WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to enter into this Amendment in order to modify the Employment Agreement to reflect that the Company has changed Employee’s title to Executive Vice President and Chief Financial and Administrative Officer of the Company effective October 29, 2013.


NOW, THEREFORE, intending to be legally bound, for good consideration, receipt of which is acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows:


1.Recitals. The parties acknowledge and agree that the above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.


2.Change of Employee’s Title. The parties acknowledge and agree that all references in the Employment Agreement to the Employee being employed as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company are hereby amended to state that the Employee is employed as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial and Administrative Officer of the Company effective as of October 29, 2013.


3.Ratification. All other terms of the Employment Agreement as amended hereby are hereby ratified and confirmed by each party. 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date set forth above.


	
					
	 
	 
	 
	“COMPANY”

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Attest:
	 
	OSI RESTAURANT PARNTERS, LLC, a  Delaware limited liability company

	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	By:
	/s/ Kelly Braun Lefferts
	 
	By:
	/s/ Joseph J. Kadow

	 
	Kelly Braun Lefferts, Assistant Secretary
	 
	 
	Joseph J. Kadow, Executive Vice President

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	WITNESSES:
	 
	“EMPLOYEE”

	 
	 
	 
	 

	/s/ John C. Passaro
	 
	/s/ David Deno

	 
	 
	DAVID DENO

	John C. Passaro
	 
	 
	 









1 of 1
# C_2009102EN.01003602.xml

| 1.5.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 102/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.5.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 102/36

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 12 March 2009 — Lafleur Tighe v Commission

(Case F-24/07) (1)

1

(Staff cases - Contract staff - Recruitment - Classification in grade - Former individual experts - Professional experience - Degrees - Certificate of equivalence - Admissibility - New and substantial fact)

2009/C 102/52

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Virginie Lafleur Tighe (Makati, Phillipines) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and G. Berscheid, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

First, annulment of the decision of the appointing authority to classify the applicant in function group IV, grade 13, step 1 at the date of her recruitment as a member of contract staff inasmuch as the calculation of her professional experience did not take account of the period between the date on which she obtained her bachelor's degree and the date on which she obtained her master's degree and, second, retroactive reclassification of the applicant in grade 14

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the action;

| 2. | orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 117 of 26.5.2007, p. 36.

1

---
# C_2008158EN.01002301.xml

| 21.6.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 158/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 158/23

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 8 May 2008 — Suvikas v Council

(Case F-6/07)

(Staff case - Members of the temporary staff - Preliminary plea - Confidential documents - Documents obtained unlawfully - Removal of documents - Recruitment - Vacant post - Unlawful rejection of candidature - Annulment - Action for damages - Loss of the opportunity to be recruited - Equitable assessment)

(2008/C 158/39)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Risto Suvikas (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Arpio Santacruz and I. Šulce, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

First, annulment of the decision of the Advisory Selection Committee not to include the applicant's name on the list of the best candidates for selection in relation to Council notice of vacancy B/024 and, second, annulment of that list and the Council decisions to recruit the candidates whose names were included therein to the posts to be filled and not to recruit the applicant — Claim for damages.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Orders that the documents produced by Mr Suvikas in Annex A 14 to A 16 to the application be removed from the case file; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Orders that the documents produced by Mr Suvikas in Annex A 14 to A 16 to the application be removed from the case file;

| 2. | Annuls the decision of the contracting authority of 20 February 2006 not to include Mr Suvikas on the list of the best candidates following the selection of Council/B/024 members of the temporary staff; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls the decision of the contracting authority of 20 February 2006 not to include Mr Suvikas on the list of the best candidates following the selection of Council/B/024 members of the temporary staff;

| 3. | Orders the Council of the European Union to pay to Mr Suvikas the sum of EUR 20 000 to compensate him for the material damage which he has suffered; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Council of the European Union to pay to Mr Suvikas the sum of EUR 20 000 to compensate him for the material damage which he has suffered;

| 4. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 5. | Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

---
*

 After an examination of the briefs and the record, we have concluded that

oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the

record. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted July 15, 2005*

Decided July 18, 2005

Before

 Hon. JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge

 Hon. DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge

 Hon. MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

No. 03-4302

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

CIRENIO C. RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of

Illinois, Eastern Division

No. 03 CR 303

James F. Holderman,

Judge.

O R D E R

Cirenio Rodriguez, a citizen of Mexico, was removed from the United States in

2000 after being convicted of attempted arson in 1992, theft in 1994, and possession

of a firearm by a felon and aggravated battery in 1998. He returned to the United

States without the permission of the Attorney General, and eventually was arrested

in Illinois for possession of a firearm by a felon. A grand jury indicted him in 2003

UNPUBLISHED ORDER

Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53
No. 03-4302 Page 2

on two counts of possession of a firearm by a felon, see 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and one

count of being present in the United States without permission after being deported

following conviction for an aggravated felony, see 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2). He

pleaded guilty to the immigration charge pursuant to a written plea agreement that

waived his right to appeal his conviction or sentence in exchange for concessions by

the government. 

Despite that waiver Rodriguez appeals, arguing that the district court erred

by sentencing him under the formerly mandatory guidelines regime, see United

States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), and contending that a limited remand is

warranted under United States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2005). We cannot

reach that issue, however, because his appeal waiver is enforceable. Nothing in

Rodriguez’s plea agreement provides an “escape hatch” enabling him to appeal if the

law changed to his benefit, and, as we recently held, Booker does not invalidate the

parties’ bargain where there is no such express provision. See United States v.

Bownes, 405 F.3d 634, 636 (7th Cir. 2005). Our opinion in United States v. Loutos,

383 F.3d 615 (7th Cir. 2004), which does not discuss the effect of the appeal waiver in

that case, cannot be read as inconsistent with Bownes. 

Rodriguez’s appeal is DISMISSED.
EX-10.2



 Exhibit 10.2 

AMENDMENT NO.4 
 TO THE LISTING AND
SALES AGREEMENT 
 This Amendment No. 4 to the Agreement (“Amendment No. 4”) is made effective as of May 1, 2014 (“Amendment
No. 4 Effective Date”) by and among Yahoo! Inc., and Yahoo! Realty Inc. (collectively “Yahoo”), on the one hand, and Zillow, Inc. (“Zillow”), on the other hand. All capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the
meanings assigned to them in the Agreement. 
 For good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties
hereby agree to amend the Agreement as set forth below: 
  

	 	1.	Section 10.1 is hereby deleted and replaced with the following new section 10.1: 


“10.1 Term. Unless earlier terminated as set forth herein, this Agreement will commence upon the Effective Date and terminate on
December 31, 2014 (the “Initial Term”), and thereafter, will automatically renew for successive periods of twelve (12) months each (each a “Renewal Term”) (the Initial Term and any Renewal Term shall collectively mean
the “Term”),unless one Party provides the other Party with written notice of non-renewal at least 120 days prior to the end of the Initial Term or any Renewal Term. 
  

	 	2.	Zillow and Yahoo each represent and warrant to the other that it has the right, power and authority to enter into this Amendment No. 4. 


 

	 	3.	In the event of conflict between the terms and conditions of the Agreement and the terms and conditions of this Amendment No. 4, the terms and conditions of this Amendment No. 4 shall control. Except as
amended by this Amendment No. 4, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms. 

  

	 	4.	This Amendment No. 4 may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment No. 4 to the Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives
effective as of the Amendment No. 4 Effective Date. 
  

			
	YAHOO! INC.
		
	By:	 	  /s/ Jacqueline D. Reses



			
	Title:	 	 Chief Development Officer



			
	Printed Name:	 	 Jacqueline D. Reses



			
	Date:	 	 5/14/14



 



			
	YAHOO! REALTY INC.
		
	By:	  	  /s/ Aman Kothari



			
	Title:	  	
SVP, Global Controller and CAO



			
	Printed Name:	  	 Aman Kothari



			
	Date:	  	 5/16/2014



 



			
	ZILLOW, INC.
		
	By:	  	  /s/ Greg Schwartz



			
	Title:	  	 Chief Revenue Officer



			
	Printed Name:	  	 Greg Schwartz



			
	Date:	  	 5/7/14
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          24,796
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,878
<ALLOWANCES>                                       330
<INVENTORY>                                     16,362
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                65,339
<PP&E>                                         194,619
<DEPRECIATION>                                  41,256
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 239,666
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           57,829
<BONDS>                                              0<F1>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           21,202
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (19,555)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   239,666
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               685,729
<CGS>                                          546,581
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  632,141
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                17,035
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0<F1>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              20,292
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,759
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,759
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               (12,745)
<CHANGES>                                      (1,579)
<NET-INCOME>                                  (12,565)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>NOT SEPARATELY IDENTIFIED IN THE CURRENT FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OR
ACCOMPANYING NOTES THERETO
</FN>


</TABLE>
In the MATTER OF: B.M.C.H.

No. COA17-105

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 1, 2017

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 188 (Thursday, September 29, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 56896]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19494]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-7976-7]


Ward Transformer Superfund Site; Notice of Proposed Settlement

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of cost recovery settlement.

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

SUMMARY: Under section 122(h) (1) of the Comprehensive Environmental 
Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the Environmental 
Protection Agency has offered a cost recovery settlement at the Ward 
Transformer Superfund Site (Site) located in Raleigh, Wake County, 
North Carolina. EPA will consider public comments until October 31, 
2005. EPA may withdraw from or modify the proposed settlement should 
such comments disclose facts or considerations which indicated the 
proposed settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. Copies 
of the proposed settlement are available from: Ms. Paula V. Batchelor, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Superfund Enforcement & 
Information Management Branch, Waste Management Division, 61 Forsyth 
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303, (404) 562-8887, Email: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#44062530272c21282b366a1425312825040114056a232b32"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3e7c5f4a5d565b52514c106e5f4b525f7e7b6e7f10595148">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Written or email comments may be submitted to Paula V. Batchelor at 
the above address within 30 days of the date of publication.

    Dated: September 15, 2005.
Rosalind H. Brown,
Chief, Superfund Enforcement & Information Management Branch, Waste 
Management Division.
[FR Doc. 05-19494 Filed 9-28-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

PHILLIP DIXON, Jr., a.k.a. Cheddar, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-30139 

D.C. No. 3:13-cr-00042-TMB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Alaska

Timothy M. Burgess, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 26, 2017**

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

Phillip Dixon, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying in part his 

motion for return of property under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g). We 

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Dixon claims that the district court erred by denying his motion for the 

 

* 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

SEP 29 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-30139 

return of $8,530. The district court appears to have denied Dixon’s motion, at least 

in part, because it presumed that this $8,530 was part of the $25,000 that Dixon

forfeited under the criminal judgment. In fact, the $8,530 that Dixon sought to 

have returned was administratively forfeited prior to his criminal proceedings. 

Nonetheless, the district did not err by denying Dixon’s motion because the

government has obtained title to the $8,530 and, therefore, Dixon has no claim to 

it. See Omidi v. United States, 851 F.3d 859, 861-62 (9th Cir. 2017) (outlining the 

administrative forfeiture process). To the extent that Dixon claims that the 

government failed to provide him with proper notice of the administrative 

forfeiture proceedings or raises any other challenges to the administrative 

forfeiture proceedings that he did not raise below, we decline to consider these 

claims. See United States v. Gilbert, 807 F.3d 1197, 1201 (9th Cir. 2015) (“As a 

general rule, a federal appellate court does not consider an issue not passed upon 

below.” (internal quotations omitted)).

AFFIRMED.
In the MATTER OF: D.S.

No. COA17-290

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 19, 2017

VACATED. REMANDED.