alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 1:06-cv-14975-AKH Document 12 Filed 09/04/2008 Page 1 of 2Case 1:06-cv-14975-AKH Document 12 Filed 09/04/2008 Page 2 of 2
116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 1646 

AN ACT 

To designate the community-based outpatient clinic of the 

Department of Veterans Affairs in St. Augustine, Florida, as the ‘‘Leo C. Chase Jr. Department of Veterans 

Affairs Clinic’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

†S 1646 ES

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF LEO C. CHASE JR. DEPART2 MENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS CLINIC. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The community-based outpatient 

4 clinic of the Department of Veterans Affairs located at 

5 207 Stratton Road, St. Augustine, Florida, shall after the 

6 date of the enactment of this Act be known and designated 

7 as the ‘‘Leo C. Chase Jr. Department of Veterans Affairs 

8 Clinic’’ or the ‘‘Leo C. Chase Jr. VA Clinic’’. 

9 (b) REFERENCE.—Any reference in any law, regula10 tion, map, document, paper, or other record of the United 

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

12 be considered to be a reference to the Leo C. Chase Jr. 

13 Department of Veterans Affairs Clinic. 

Passed the Senate September 17, 2020. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 1646 

AN ACT 

To designate the community-based outpatient clinic 

partment of Veterans Affairs Clinic’’. gustine, Florida, as the ‘‘Leo C. Chase Jr. Deof the Department of Veterans Affairs in St. Au-
Exhibit 4.8


 


Amended
and Restated Power of Attorney


 


I, Li Donglin, with the ID
number of 132903196312249814 , am a shareholder who owns a 6.98% equity interest in Beijing Baihengda Petroleum
Technology Co., Ltd. (" Petroleum Technology ") (" My Equity "). Regarding
my equity, I hereby irrevocably authorize Recon Hengda Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. (" Hengda Technology ")
to exercise the following rights during the validity period of this power of attorney:


 


To authorize Hengda Technology
to act as my sole and exclusive agent to exercise all rights on my behalf in my name on matters related to my equity, including but not
limited to the following rights: (1) participate in the shareholders’ meeting of Petroleum Technology and execute the relevant shareholders’
resolutions on my behalf; (2) exercise all the shareholder rights that I have in accordance with the law and the articles of association
of Petroleum Technology, including but not limited to shareholders’ voting rights, the right to sell or transfer or pledge or dispose
of all or any part of my equity; and (3) as my authorized representative, designate and appoint the legal representative, chairman of
the board, directors, supervisors, general manager and other senior management personnel of Petroleum Technology.


 


Hengda Technology will have
the right to sign the revised and restated exclusive right of purchase contract (I shall be a party to the contract) on behalf of me within
the scope of authorization, and perform the assignment contract as a party to the contract on the same day as this power of attorney.
The exercise of the revised and restated equity pledge contract and the revised and restated exclusive right of purchase contract signed
will not impose any restriction on the exercise of this authorization.


 


Except as otherwise stipulated
in this power of attorney, all actions of Hengda Technology regarding my equity can be made in accordance with its own judgment without
any oral or written instructions from me.


 


All acts of Hengda
Technology regarding my equity shall be regarded as my own, and all signed documents shall be deemed to have been signed by me, and I
will recognize it.


 


Hengda Technology has the right
to delegate, and can re-delegate other individuals or units on its own for the handling of the above matters and the exercise of its own
equity without notifying me or obtaining my consent in advance, but it shall notify me immediately afterwards, and such delegated rights
The exercise shall not harm my interests.


 


While I am a shareholder of
Petroleum Technology, this power of attorney is irrevocable and continues to be valid, starting from the date of signing this power of
attorney.


 


During the period of this power
of attorney, if I need to exercise all the rights related to my equity that have been authorized to Hengda Technology through this power
of attorney, I shall negotiate with Hengda Technology.


 


 


	 	Signed by: Li
    Donglin
	 	 
	 	/s/ Li Donglin
	 	Li Donglin
	 	 
	 	 
	 	Effective as of April 1, 2019
#### Jairo Enrique CHAMORRO, et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto GONZALES,* Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 03-74313.

Agency Nos. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 23, 2005.**

Decided April 4, 2005.

*844Tim Everett, Law Office of Tim Everett, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration *&*Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Margaret J. Perry, Jacqueline Dryden, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before B. FLETCHER, TROTT, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 Alberto Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

**

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

MEMORANDUM***

Jairo Enrique Chamorro, his wife, Jeannette Patricia Rivera-Idalgo, and his daughter, Kayla Valentina Chamorro-Rivera, natives and citizens of Colombia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ summary affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s (“U”) denial of their applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence and may reverse only if the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. *Rostomian v. INS,*210 F.3d 1088, 1089 (9th Cir.2000). We deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s decision that petitioners failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. Petitioners are active church members who have never been harassed or harmed. Because petitioners fail to show that a fear of future persecution is objectively reasonable, and general civil strife is insufficient to establish a well-founded fear of persecution, petitioners’ asylum claim fails. *See Kotasz v. INS,*31 F.3d 847, 854 (9th Cir.1994) (holding that alien failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution because she only showed discrimination against gypsies and did not demonstrate systematic persecution); *Rostomian,*210 F.3d at 1089 (denying asylum because general civil strife was insufficient to establish a well-founded fear of persecution); *Ochave v. INS,*254 F.3d 859, 865 (9th Cir.2001) (stating that “[ajsylum generally is not available to victims of civil strife, unless they are singled out on account of a protected ground.”).

Because petitioners failed to establish eligibility for asylum, it follows that they failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. *See Alvarez-Santos v. INS,*332 F.3d 1245, 1255 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Case 1:07-cv-03303-CM-DCF     Document 8      Filed 07/31/2007     Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-03303-CM-DCF     Document 8      Filed 07/31/2007     Page 2 of 2
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NOS. WR-95,344-01 & WR-95,344-02

EX PARTE SAMANTHA GARCIA, Applicant

ON APPLICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NOS. 2011CR1577A-W1 & 2011CR2193-W1

IN THE 290TH DISTRICT COURT FROM BEXAR COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Applicant pleaded no contest to two charges of possession of less than one gram of a

controlled substance in PenaltyGroup One. In each case, she received deferred adjudication and was

sentenced to 4 years’ community supervision. On adjudication, she received sentences of 1 year in

the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–State Jail Division. Applicant filed these applications for

writs of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and the district clerk forwarded them to this

Court. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07. 

Applicant contends that trial counsel was ineffective because he operated under an actual

conflict of interest, placing his personal interests over Applicant’s interest. Specifically, trial counsel

repeatedly demanded sexual performance from Applicant against her will. He did not discuss the
2

facts of her cases or any possible defenses, or interview potential witnesses. Counsel falsely told

Applicant that he could sway the trial judge’s decisions. He threatened to exercise his power with

the judge to hurt Applicant’s cases if she did not accede to his sexual demands. He frightened

Applicant into complying.

Following a hearing, the habeas court made findings of fact and conclusions of law in which

it recommended that habeas relief be granted as to applicant’s claim that trial counsel labored under

an actual conflict of interest due to his sexual misconduct towards applicant, thereby resulting in a

denial of her Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel. Counsel’s only interest

in Applicant’s cases was as leverage to demand Applicant’s sexual performance. The trial court has

determined that trial counsel’s performance was deficient and that Applicant was prejudiced.

Relief is granted. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). The judgments in cause

numbers 2011CR1577A and 2011CR2193 in the 290th District Court of Bexar County are set aside.

Applicant shall answer the charges as set out in the indictments. The trial court shall issue any

necessary orders within ten days from the date of this Court’s mandate.

Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Correctional

Institutions Division and the Board of Pardons and Paroles.

Delivered: January 10, 2024

Do not publish
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense POW/MIA Accounting AgencyFulfilling Our Nation's Promise

Search
Search

Search

              - 
              - 
              - 

-  Home		 
-  Families		 
-  Our Missing    -  Searchable List of the Missing             
  -  Searchable Map of the Missing             
  -  Recently Accounted For             
  -  World War II      -  World War II Summary             
    -  Battle of Tarawa             
    -  Attack on Pearl Harbor 
  -  Korean War      -  Korean War Summary             
    -  Battle of Chosin Reservoir             
    -  Battle of Unsan             
    -  Korean Air Battles             
    -  The Inchon Campaign             
    -  The Pusan Perimeter             
    -  The DMZ Campaigns             
    -  Korean War Disinterments             
    -  Operation Glory             
    -  POW Camps 
  -  Vietnam War      -  Vietnam War Summary             
    -  Vietnam War Identification Project             
    -  Tet Offensive             
    -  Battle of Khe Sanh             
    -  Mayaguez Incident             
    -  Battle of Ia Drang             
    -  Lam Son 
  -  Cold War             
  -  Gulf Wars & Libya             
  -  Unknowns 
-  News & Stories    -  Our Stories             
  -  Press Releases             
  -  DPAA In The News             
  -  Year In Review 
-  Multimedia    -  Livestreams             
  -  Podcast             
  -  Briefing Videos             
  -  Science Videos             
  -  DPAA Laboratory             
  -  Media Gallery 
-  Resources    -  FAQs             
  -  AFMES DNA Laboratory             
  -  Publicly Released Documents             
  -  Family/VSO Update Notes             
  -  Family Member Guide             
  -  POW/MIA Day Toolkit             
  -  USRJC 
-  About    -  Leadership             
  -  Vision-Mission-Values             
  -  DPAA Organizational Chart 
-  Contact    -  Contact Us             
  -  Join Us      -  Careers 
  -  Report a Site             
  -  Donate to the Mission 
-  Volunteer		 

## News Release

# USS West Virginia Sailor Accounted For From World War II (Walters, B.)

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT
#### STATE v. PUCKETT

No. 55.

Case below: 46 N.C. App. 719.

Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 15 July 1980.
Case 1:06-cv-15029-AKH Document 2 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:06-cv-14986-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14986-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 2 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14986-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 3 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14986-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 4 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14986-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 5 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14986-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 6 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14986-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 7 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14986-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 8 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14986-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 9 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14986-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 10 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14986-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 11 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14986-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 12 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14986-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 13 of 13
**Exhibit 8.1**

 

**SUBSIDIARIES**

 

Advanced Semiconductor Materials (Netherlands Antilles N.V.) 

 

ASM Pacific Technology Limited (subsidiary of ASM Netherlands Antilles N.V.) 

 

ASM Assembly Automation Limited (subsidiary of ASM Pacific Technology Limited) 

 

ASM Assembly Materials Limited (subsidiary of ASM Pacific Technology Limited) 

 

ASM Assembly Products B.V. (subsidiary of ASM Pacific Technology Limited) 

 

ASM Assembly Technology Co. Limited (subsidiary of ASM Pacific Technology Limited) 

 

ASM Pacific International Marketing Limited (subsidiary of ASM Pacific Technology Limited) 

 

ASM Pacific Investments Limited (subsidiary of ASM Pacific Technology Limited) 

 

ASM Pacific KOR Limited (subsidiary of ASM Pacific Technology Limited) 

 

ASM Assembly Equipment Bangkok Limited (subsidiary of ASM Pacific Technology Limited)

 

ASM Semiconductor Material (Shenzhen) Co. Limited (subsidiary of ASM PacificTechnology Limited) 

 

ASM Technology Singapore Pte. Limited (subsidiary of ASMPacific Technology Limited) 

 

ASM Technology (M) Sdn. Bhd. (subsidiary of ASMPacific Technology Limited) 

 

Capital Equipment Distribution Limited (subsidiaryof ASM Pacific Technology Limited) 

 

Shenzhen ASM Micro Electronic TechnologyCo. Limited (subsidiary of ASM Pacific Technology Limited) 

 

Shenzhen ASMPrecision Machinery Manufactory Limited (subsidiary of ASM Pacific Technology Limited) 

 

ASM Assembly Equipment (M) Sdn. Bhd. (subsidiary of ASM Pacific Technology Limited) 

 

ASM Assembly Equipment Trading (Shanghai) Co. Limited (subsidiary of ASM Pacific Technology Limited) 

 

ASM Pacific (Bermuda) Limited (subsidiary of ASM Pacific Technology Limited) 

 

ASM Asia Limited (subsidiary of ASM Pacific Technology Limited) 

 

ASM America, Inc. 

 

ASM Pacific Assembly Products Inc. (subsidiary of ASM America, Inc.) 

 

ASM Front-End Manufacturing Singapore Pte Limited 

 

ASM Japan K.K. 

 

ASM Microchemistry Oy 

 

NanoPhotonics AG 

 

ASM Europe B.V. 

 

ASM France SARL (subsidiary of ASM Europe B.V.) 

 

ASM Belgium N.V. (subsidiary of ASM Europe B.V.) 

 

ASM United Kingdom Sales B.V. (subsidiary of ASM Europe B.V.) 

 

ASM Germany Sales B.V. (subsidiary of ASM Europe B.V.) 

 

ASM Italia Srl (subsidiary of ASM Europe B.V.) 

 

ASM Support and Services Ireland Ltd. (subsidiary of ASM Europe B.V.) 

 

ASM China Limited 

 

ASM Wafer Process Equipment Limited 

 

ASM Wafer Process Equipment Singapore Pte Limited 

 

ASM Far East Marketing Limited (subsidiary of ASM Wafer Process Equipment Limited) 

 

ASM Korea Limited
#### IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT AGAINST CHARLES E. S. SIMPSON, AN ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR-AT-LAW OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY.

Argued February 8, 1932

Decided March 1, 1932.

Before Justices Tbenohaed, Daly and Donges.

For the motion, *John Drewen.*

Contra, *Robert H. McCarter.*

*308Per Curiam.

In this matter a complaint was made against Charles E. S. Simpson, an attorney and eounselor-at-law of this state, charging unethical and illegal conduct upon his part. That complaint was duly referred to the state board of bar examiners for investigation and report. Their report disclosed that due hearing was accorded and that they found and reported Charles E. S. Simpson “guilty of unprofessional *conduct;*that he is unfit to continue a member of the bar, and recommend that he be disbarred and his name struck from the rolls of attorneys and counselors of this state.”

Due examination and consideration of the matters laid before us at the argument on this motion for confirmation of the report results in the conclusion that the report must be confirmed and that said Simpson be disbarred and his name stricken from the rolls of attorneys and counselors of this state, and it accordingly is so ordered.
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 53-22 Filed 08/24/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 53-22 Filed 08/24/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 53-22 Filed 08/24/2007 Page 3 of 3
Case 7:07-cv-03318-CS Document 19-4 Filed 10/24/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 7:07-cv-03318-CS Document 19-4 Filed 10/24/2007 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-03226-AKH Document 4 Filed 02/17/09 Page 1 of 2Case 1:07-cv-03226-AKH Document 4 Filed 02/17/09 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1598 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1598

 To exempt children of certain Filipino World War II veterans from the 
   numerical limitations on immigrant visas, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 22, 2019

 Ms. Hirono (for herself, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Schatz, Ms. Cortez Masto, 
 Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Booker, Ms. Rosen, Ms. Duckworth, Mr. Brown, Ms. 
  Harris, Mr. Kaine, and Ms. Cantwell) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To exempt children of certain Filipino World War II veterans from the 
   numerical limitations on immigrant visas, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Filipino Veterans Family 
Reunification Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. EXEMPTION FROM IMMIGRANT VISA LIMIT.

    Section 201(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
1151(b)(1)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(F) Aliens who--
                    ``(i) are eligible for a visa under paragraph (1) 
                or (3) of section 203(a); and
                    ``(ii) have a parent (regardless of whether the 
                parent is living or dead) who was naturalized pursuant 
                to--
                            ``(I) section 405 of the Immigration Act of 
                        1990 (Public Law 101-649; 8 U.S.C. 1440 note); 
                        or
                            ``(II) title III of the Act of October 14, 
                        1940 (54 Stat. 1137, chapter 876), as added by 
                        section 1001 of the Second War Powers Act, 1942 
                        (56 Stat. 182, chapter 199).''.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7283

DUSTIN A. TURNER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Department of

Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District

Judge. (CA-00-961-2)

Submitted: October 4, 2001 Decided: October 12, 2001

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Bernard Hargett, HARGETT & WATSON, P.L.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Robert H. Anderson, III, OFFICE OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Dustin A. Turner seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate

judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court. Turner v. Angelone, No. CA-00-961-2 (E.D. Va.

July 12, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 23

- 00209

- CV

R AYMOND L UNA

, Appellant

V

.

R OSARIO G ARCIA , Appellee §

§

§

§ O n Appeal from the 360th District Court

of Tarra nt County ( 360

- 709504

- 21 )

November 9 , 2023

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of th e trial

court is affirmed.

I t is further ordered that appellant Raymond Luna shall bear the costs of this

appeal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Dana Womack

Justice Dana Womack
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 81-2 Filed 03/12/2008 Page 1 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 81-2 Filed 03/12/2008 Page 2 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 81-2 Filed 03/12/2008 Page 3 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 81-2 Filed 03/12/2008 Page 4 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 81-2 Filed 03/12/2008 Page 5 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 81-2 Filed 03/12/2008 Page 6 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 81-2 Filed 03/12/2008 Page 7 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 81-2 Filed 03/12/2008 Page 8 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 81-2 Filed 03/12/2008 Page 9 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 81-2 Filed 03/12/2008 Page 10 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-03241-RJH-MHD     Document 36      Filed 03/11/2008     Page 1 of 1
Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS Document 36 Filed 11/07/2006 Page 1 of 1