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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NORBERTO JR. TOJINO LEANO,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 13-72702

Agency No. A098-467-399

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 14, 2015** 

Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Norberto Jr. Tojino Leano, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions

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

appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum

and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We

FILED

OCT 21 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Leano’s experiences

in the Philippines did not rise to the level of persecution. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft,

319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003) (unfulfilled threats constituted harassment,

not persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination that

Leano failed to establish an objectively reasonable fear of future harm in the

Philippines. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1022 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner

failed to “present compelling, objective evidence demonstrating a well-founded

fear of persecution”). We reject Leano’s contention that the BIA applied an

incorrect legal standard. Thus, Leano’s asylum claim fails. 

Because Leano failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed

to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453

F.3d at 1190.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 13-72702
(March 11, 2004)

#### In the Matter of Michael A. Koplen, Respondent, v Timothy A. Austin et al., Respondents, and Carol Vasquez et al., Appellants, and Rockland County Board of Elections et al., Respondents.

[772 NYS2d 829]

*516In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-102, inter alia, in effect, to invalidate a certificate to fill vacancy, naming Melvyn Poliakoff as the candidate of the Voters for Better Government Party for the public office of Trustee of the Village of New Hempstead (two-year term) in a general village election to be held on March 16, 2004, Carol Vasquez, Clerk of the Village of New Hempstead, and the Incorporated Village of New Hempstead appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of a final order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (O’Rourke, J.), dated March 1, 2004, as dismissed their cross claim, among other things, to review a determination of the Rockland County Board of Elections dated February 19, 2004, which sustained the petitioner’s objections to the certificate to fill vacancy.

Ordered that the final order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Pursuant to CPLR 402, the pleadings in a special proceeding are limited to a petition, an answer, and a reply to any counterclaim asserted. “The court may permit such other pleadings as are authorized in an action upon such terms as it may specify” (CPLR 402). “[A] cross claim is not permitted in a special proceeding without leave of court” *(Matter of O’Connor v D'Apice,*156 AD2d 610, 612 [1989]; *see Matter of Williams v Rensselaer County Bd. of Elections,*98 AD2d 938 [1983]). The appellants did not seek leave to serve a cross claim, and thus the cross claim was not properly before the Supreme Court *(see Matter of Zenosky v Graziani,*288 AD2d 843 [2001]; *Matter of O’Connor v D’Apice, supra; Matter of Williams v Rensselaer County Bd. of Elections, supra).*

In light of the foregoing, we do not reach the appellants’ remaining contentions. Altman, J.P., Florio, Luciano and Mastro, JJ., concur.
Galiano Gold Inc.: Exhibit 4.8 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com


    


    FORM 51-102F3
MATERIAL CHANGE REPORT

    Item 1: Name and Address of Company

    Galiano Gold Inc. ("Galiano" or the "Company")
1066 West Hastings Street, Suite 1640
Vancouver, BC
V6E 3X1

    Item 2: Date of Material Change

    March 23, 2022

    Item 3: News Release

    The news release announcing the material change referred to in this report was disseminated on March 23, 2022 through Newswire and a copy has been filed under Galiano's profile on SEDAR.

    Item 4: Summary of Material Change

    On March 23, 2022, Galiano announced that Mr. Fausto Di Trapani, Chief Financial Officer ("CFO") of Galiano, informed the Company that he will be stepping down as CFO to pursue another opportunity.

    Item 5:

    5.1 Full Description of Material Change

    On March 23, 2022, Galiano announced that Mr. Fausto Di Trapani, CFO, informed the Company that he will be stepping down as CFO to pursue another opportunity.

    Mr. Di Trapani will continue to serve as CFO until his departure in early May 2022 and will work during the coming weeks to ensure an orderly transition of his responsibilities. Following Mr. Di Trapani's departure the Company intends to appoint Matt Freeman, current SVP Finance as its new CFO, in line with the Company's succession plan.

    5.2 Disclosure for Restructuring Transaction

    Not applicable.

    Item 6: Reliance on Subsection 7.1(2) or (3) of National Instrument 51-102

    Not applicable.

    Item 7: Omitted Information

    Not applicable.

    


    Item 8: Executive Officer

    For further information, please contact Peter Lekich, Vice President Investor Relations of Galiano, at (778) 729-0608.

    Item 9: Date of Report

    April 1, 2022.
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3701 

To exempt commercial truck drivers from Canada or Mexico who are seeking 

to temporarily enter the United States for business through a land 

port of entry from any COVID–19 vaccination requirement. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 17, 2022 

Mr. SCOTT of Florida (for himself, Mr. MARSHALL, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. 

BRAUN, Mr. LEE, Mr. HOEVEN, Mr. CRAMER, and Mr. HAWLEY) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To exempt commercial truck drivers from Canada or Mexico 

who are seeking to temporarily enter the United States 

for business through a land port of entry from any 

COVID–19 vaccination requirement. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLES. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Terminating Reckless 

5 and Unnecessary Checks Known to Erode Regular Ship6 ping Act’’ or the ‘‘TRUCKERS Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3701 IS

1 SEC. 2. EXEMPTION FROM COVID–19 VACCINATION RE2 QUIREMENT. 

3 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Sec4 retary of Homeland Security may not impose any COVID– 

5 19 vaccination requirement on any commercial truck driv6 er who is a national of Canada or of Mexico and is seeking 

7 to temporarily enter the United States for business 

8 through a land port of entry. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM






Board of Directors and Stockholders
Nittany Financial Corp.

We  have  reviewed  the  accompanying  consolidated  balance  sheet  of  Nittany
Financial  Corp.  and  subsidiaries  as of  March  31,  2005,  and  the  related
consolidated  statement  of income for the three month  periods  ended March 31,
2005 and 2004, and the consolidated statement of changes in stockholders' equity
for the three-month period ended March 31, 2005, and the consolidated  statement
of cash flows for the three-month  periods ended March 31, 2005 and 2004.  These
financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management.

We conducted  our review in  accordance  with  standards  of the Public  Company
Accounting  Oversight  Board  (United  States).  A review of  interim  financial
information consists principally of applying analytical  procedures to financial
data and making  inquiries of persons  responsible  for financial and accounting
matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance
with standards of the Public Company  Accounting  Oversight Board, the objective
of which is the  expression of an opinion  regarding  the  financial  statements
taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material  modifications that should
be made to the accompanying  financial  statements referred to above for them to
be in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

We have previously  audited,  in accordance with standards of the Public Company
Accounting  Oversights Board (United States),  the consolidated balance sheet as
of December 31, 2004, and the related consolidated statements of income, changes
in stockholders'  equity,  and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented
herein);  and in our report dated March 16, 2005, except for Note 18 as to which
the date is March  28,  2005,  we  expressed  an  unqualified  opinion  on those
consolidated financial statements.


/s/ S.R. Snodgrass, A.C.

Wexford, PA

April 8, 2005
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 4 (Friday, January 6, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2097-2098]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-324]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. ER95-306-000]


Northeast Utilities Service Company; Notice of Filing

December 30, 1994.
    Take notice that on December 20, 1994, Northeast Utilities Service 
Company (NUSCO), on behalf of The Connecticut Light and Power Company, 
Western Massachusetts Electric Company, Holyoke Water Power Company, 
Holyoke Power and Electric Company, and Public Service Company of New 
Hampshire, tendered for filing: Agreement Regarding Transmission and 
Interconnection Arrangements For The [[Page 2098]] Altresco Pittsfield 
Cogeneration Plant, between NUSCO and Altresco Pittsfield Limited 
Partnership (Altresco); Transmission Tariff 1 and 2 Service Agreements, 
between NUSCO and Altresco; and Altresco Pittsfield, L.P. Tax Indemnity 
Agreement, between NUSCO and Altresco.
    In this filing, NUSCO requests that: (1) The Transmission Tariff 1 
Service Agreement supersede the Firm Transmission Service Agreement 
between NUSCO and New England Power Company (NEP), and that the Firm 
Transmission Service Agreement be terminated as of the effective of the 
Tariff 1 Service Agreement; and 92) the Transmission Tariff 2 Service 
Agreement supersede the Non-Firm Transmission Service Agreement between 
NUSCO and NEP, and that the Non-Firm Transmission Service Agreement be 
terminated as of the effective date of the Tariff 2 Service Agreement.
    NUSCO states that this filing is in accordance with Part 35 of the 
Commission's regulations.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 
20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules 
of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before January 13, 1995. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-324 Filed 1-5-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-40044

Summary Calendar

 

NORRIS HICKS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; STATE

OF TEXAS; COUNTY OF BEE; JOANN 

DAVIS; LESLIE WOODS,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-94-95

- - - - - - - - - -

August 6, 1996

Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Norris Hicks, Texas prisoner #505593, appeals the 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915 dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as frivolous. The

dismissal followed remand after Hicks’ first appeal. 

Hicks contends that the court abused its discretion in not

addressing his denial-of-access-to-the-courts claim. On the

contrary, the court addressed the claim prior to the first appeal,
** Ruiz v. Estelle, 503 F. Supp. 1265 (S.D. Tex. 1980), rev’d

in part, 679 F.2d 1115 (5th Cir.), vacated in part, 688 F.2d 266

(5th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1042 (1983).

- 2 -

and this court affirmed its dismissal. Hicks v. United States, No.

94-60677 (5th Cir. April 3, 1995)(unpublished). 

Hicks maintains that the district court abused its discretion

in not addressing his pendent state law claim and his claim that

appellees violated the Ruiz** consent decree. But, the district

court has discretion whether to review pendent state law claims,

Gregory v. Mitchell, 634 F.2d 199, 202 (5th Cir. 1981); and, the

Ruiz consent decree claim is not cognizable under § 1983, see Green

v. McKaskle, 788 F.2d 1116, 1117-18 (5th Cir. 1986).

Hicks also asserts that the district court abused its

discretion in dismissing his claims regarding his placement in

lockdown and solitary confinement and his claim that the conditions

during the lockdown constituted cruel and unusual punishment. We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find

no abuse of discretion. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31-

32 (1992). See also Sandin v. Conner, __ U.S. __, 115 S. Ct. 2293

(1995). 

Accordingly, we conclude that this appeal lacks merit for

essentially the reasons given by the district court. Hicks v.

United States, No. C-94-95 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 27, 1995). In that this
- 3 -

appeal is without arguable merit it is frivolous. Howard v. King,

707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, it is

DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2. We note that, in an unrelated

appeal, our court warned Hicks recently that sanctions will result

from future frivolous appeals. Hicks v. United States, No. 96-

40001 (5th Cir. May 15, 1996)(unpublished). Because the instant

appeal was filed and briefed before that warning, we impose no

sanctions at this time. The prior warning, however, retains its

force. 

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING REPEATED
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5692 

To restrict passports for travel to or use in certain countries, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 12, 2014 

Mr. POE of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To restrict passports for travel to or use in certain countries, 

and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Ebola Prevention Act 

5 of 2014’’. 

6 SEC. 2. RESTRICTION OF PASSPORTS FOR TRAVEL TO OR 

7 USE IN CERTAIN COUNTRIES. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Due to the imminent danger to 

9 the public health and pursuant to section 1 of the Act 

10 entitled ‘‘An Act to regulate the issue and validity of passVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:41 Nov 13, 2014 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H5692.IH H5692

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5692 IH

1 ports, and for other purposes’’, approved July 3, 1926 (22 

2 U.S.C. 211a), commonly known as the ‘‘Passport Act of 

3 1926’’, the Secretary of State shall designate all passports 

4 as restricted for travel to or for use in Guinea, Liberia, 

5 and Sierra Leone. 

6 (b) EXCEPTION.—The restriction on passports de7 scribed in subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to 

8 any travel to for use in Guinea, Liberia, or Sierra Leone 

9 the purpose of which the Secretary of State determines 

10 to be for diplomatic, health care, humanitarian, journal11 istic, or military reasons. 

12 (c) REPORTING.—Not later than 120 days after the 

13 date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State 

14 shall submit to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the 

15 House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign 

16 Relations of the Senate a report on the implementation 

17 of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 32 (Thursday, February 16, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9020-9021]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3896]



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


DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Change to Item 410 of the International Personal Property Rate 
Solicitation--Notification of MTMC's Intent To Increase Carrier 
Liability to $1.25 Times the New Shipment Weight

AGENCY: Military Traffic Management Command, DoD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is to provide notification of MTMC's intent to increase 
carrier liability to $1.25 times the net shipment weight. This is a 
change to item 410 of the International Personal Property Rate 
Solicitation. The change was originally [[Page 9021]] proposed in the 
Federal Register, dated 4 March 1993. As requested by industry, the 
General Accounting Office (GAO) conducted a study on the proposed 
increase in carrier liability. Acting on the recommendation of the GAO 
study, MTMC intends to increase the carrier liability from $1.80 per 
pound per article to $1.25 times the net shipment weight (in pounds), 
for any lost or damaged article, effective October 1, 1995, with the 
International Winter (IW95) rate cycle. A shipment valuation charge of 
$1.28 per $100 of the released or declared value will apply for 3 years 
from the implementation date of October 1, 1995. The shipment valuation 
charge will cease to apply on October 1, 1998, effective with the IW98 
rate cycle. The following is the change, by subparagraph, to item 410:
    Item 410.a. All rates in this solicitation apply on shipments when 
released to a value not exceeding $1.25 times the net shipment weight 
(in pounds), including items of extraordinary value.
    Item 410.b. No change.
    Item 410.c. No change.
    Item 410.c.(1). Net weight of shipment, 5,500 pounds; headboard 
lost or damaged, weight 50 pounds. Carrier's maximum liability for loss 
or damage to the headboard would be $1.25 times 5,500 pounds (net 
shipment weight) or $6,875.
    Item 410.c.(2). New weight of shipment, 10,000 pounds; TV (19 inch) 
damaged, weight 25 pounds. Carrier's maximum liability would be $1.25 
times 10,000 pounds or $12,000.
    Item 410.c.(3). Net weight of shipment, 3,000 pounds; fishing reel 
missing, weight 1 pound. Carrier's maximum liability would be $1.25 
times 3,000 pounds or $3,750.
    Item 410.c.(4). No change.
    Item 410.c.(5). No change.
    Item 410.d. Add the following subparagraph to read: A shipment 
valuation charge of $1.28 for each $100 of the released or declared 
value will apply.

ADDRESSES: Commander, Military Traffic Management Command, ATTN: MTOP-
T-NP, 5611 Columbia Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-5050.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Alex Moreno, (703) 756-2383.

DATES: The shipment valuation charge will cease to apply on October 1, 
1998.
Kenneth L. Denton,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-3896 Filed 2-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
Exhibit
10.6


 


AMENDMENT
NO. 1 TO CONVERTIBLE NOTE


 


Amendment
No. 1 to that certain convertible note dated August 4, 2022 dated as of November 16, 2022 (the “Amendment”), between
Scripps Safe, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, (the “Company”), and Greentree Financial Group, Inc., (“Greentree”,
and together with the Company, the “Parties”, and each, a “Party”).


 


WHEREAS,
the Parties have entered into a Loan Agreement dated as of August 4, 2022, pursuant to which Greentree has agreed to loan the Company
up to $250,000 (the “Existing Agreement”) and desire to amend the convertible note dated August 4, 2022 (the “Existing
Note”) issued in connection with the Existing Agreement on the terms and subject to the conditions set forth herein.


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:


 


1.Definitions.
Capitalized terms used and not defined in this Amendment have the respective meanings assigned to them in the Existing Note.


 


2.
Amendments to the Existing Note. The Existing Note is hereby amended as follows:


 


(a)
Section 3.1 of the Existing Note is hereby amended to provide that the balance under the Existing Note may be converted into the Company’s
common stock immediately upon the completion of the Company’s IPO or some other event that results in the Company’s common
stock becoming publicly traded as opposed to the balance under the Existing Note being convertible into common stock immediately upon
issuance.


 


3.
Except as expressly set forth herein, the Existing Agreement and Existing Note are unmodified and remain in full force and effect and
the execution of this Amendment does not and shall not constitute an amendment of any other rights to which the parties are entitled
pursuant to the Existing Agreement or Existing Note.


 


[SIGNATURE
PAGE FOLLOWS]


 




    	 



     


    

 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Amendment on the date first written above.


 


	 	SCRIPPS SAFE, INC.
	 	 
	 	By	 /s/
                                            Jacqueline Anz 


    

	 	Name:	Jacqueline Anz
	 	Title:	Chief Executive Officer
	 	 
	 	GREENTREE FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.
	 	 
	 	By	 /s/
    Robert Chris Cottone 
	 	Name:	Robert Chris Cottone
	 	Title:	Vice President



 




    	2