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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

YENNI LUKMAN SIMON,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 11-73706

Agency No. A089-884-296

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 19, 2013** 

Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Yenni Lukman Simon, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration

judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of

removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial

FILED

DEC 10 2013

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).
evidence factual findings, see Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th

Cir. 2009), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Simon’s

experiences in Indonesia, even considered cumulatively, do not rise to the level of

past persecution. See id. at 1059-60 (being beaten by youths, robbed of sandals

and pocket money, and accosted by a threatening mob did not compel a past

persecution finding). Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s determination

that, even under a disfavored group analysis, Simon has not established a wellfounded fear of persecution in Indonesia because she did not demonstrate sufficient

individualized risk. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 979 (9th Cir. 2009); see

also Loho v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 1016, 1017-18 (9th Cir. 2008) (“willingly

returning to [petitioner’s] home country militates against a finding of . . . wellfounded fear”). Accordingly, Simon’s asylum claim fails.

Because she failed to establish eligibility for asylum, Simon necessarily

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

v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 11-73706
#### In the Matter of Roxana Bacon.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Opinion

*Per Curiam.*
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

CENTRIPETAL NETWORKS, INC.,

Appellant

v.

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,

Appellee

______________________

2020-1634, 2020-1829

______________________

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2018-

01386, IPR2018-01512.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

JAMES R. HANNAH, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel 

LLP, Menlo Park, CA, argued for appellant. Also represented by PAUL J. ANDRE; JEFFREY PRICE, New York, NY. 

 JEFFREY BLAKE, Merchant & Gould PC, Atlanta, GA, 

argued for appellee. Also represented by DANIEL W.

MCDONALD, Minneapolis, MN; MICHAEL WAGNER, Denver, 

CO.

 ______________________

Case: 20-1634 Document: 52 Page: 1 Filed: 05/11/2021
THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

 PER CURIAM (PROST, Chief Judge, LOURIE and 

REYNA, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

May 11, 2021 

Date

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Case: 20-1634 Document: 52 Page: 2 Filed: 05/11/2021
EXHIBIT 99.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the quarterly report of Golden State Vintners, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Jeffrey B. O'Neill, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbannes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to my knowledge:

(1)  The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

|/s/JEFFREY B. O'NEILLJeffrey B. O'Neill
Chief Executive Officer
February 13, 2003 |  | 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|                                                                                  |  | 

---

QuickLinks
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 37 (Friday, February 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10381-10382]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-4518]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Project No. 2444-002-WI]


Northern States Power Co., Wisconsin Notice of Availability of 
Draft Environmental Assessment

February 17, 1995.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission's) 
regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 F.R. 47897), the Office 
of Hydropower Licensing has reviewed the application for a subsequent 
minor license for the White River Project, located in Ashland County, 
Wisconsin, and has prepared a Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for 
the project. In the DEA, the Commission's staff has analyzed the 
potential environmental impacts of the existing project and has 
concluded that approval of the project, [[Page 10382]] with appropriate 
environmental protection measures, would not constitute a major federal 
action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
    Copies of the DEA are available for review in the Public Reference 
Branch,, Room 3104, of the Commission's offices at 941 North Capitol 
Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426.
    Any comments should be filed within 45 days from the date of this 
notice and should be addressed to Lois D. Cashell, Secretary, Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426. Please affix Project No. 2444 to all comments. 
For further information, please contact Sabina Joe at (202) 219-1648.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-4518 Filed 2-23-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

      ( print page 6525)    
                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Library of Medicine Special Emphasis Panel, February 25, 2016, 12:00 p.m. to 04:00 p.m., National Library of Medicine, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Suite 301, Bethesda, MD 20817 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on January 26, 2016 (81 FR 4319).                

The meeting of the Special Emphasis Panel will be held on March 25, 2016 instead of February 25, 2016, at 12:00 p.m. and will end at 4:00 p.m. The meeting is closed to the public.

Dated: February 2, 2016.

Michelle Trout,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2016-02315 Filed 2-5-16; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 8 -00 440 -CR

M ar c us J e r om e Bla c km an , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF B ELL COUNTY , 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 6182 1 , HO NORAB LE F ANCY H . JEZ EK , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
Marc us Je r o me B la c k mu n p le a d e d g u il ty to th e o f f e n s e o f a tt e mp te d b u r g la

r y o f a habitation. See Tex. Pena l Code § 30.02 (West 2003)
. The district c ourt defe rre d ad j u d i cation and plac ed B lackmun on community supervis i o n fo r five y ear s. Subsequently , the State filed
a motion to adjudicate
. At the hear ing on the State’s motion, B lackmun pleade d t ru e t o v i olating 18 conditions of his community supervision. The district cour t found the alleg ations in the State’s mot ion to b e tr ue , a dju dic a te d B la c kmu

n g uil ty , a nd se nte nc e d h im t o te n y e a rs ’ i mpr iso nme nt. Appellant’s court-a

ppointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw and a b ri ef concluding that the appe al is frivolous and without merit. The br ief mee t s t h e re q u i re ments of An de rs v . Ca lif

or nia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), b y p resenting a profe ssional evaluation of the
rec ord demonstra ting why there are no arg uable g rounds to be adva nced. Se e als o P e ns on v . O hio , 48 8 U.S . 75 ( 19 88 ); Hi

gh v . S tat e , 5 73 S.W. 2d

80 7 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 78 ); C u r r i e v . S t ate ,2

51 6 S.W.2 d 684 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 74 ); J ac k so n v . S tat e , 485 S.W .2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Ga ino us v . S

tat e , 436 S.W .2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Appellant rec eived a copy of counse l’s br ie f a nd wa s a dv ise d of his ri g ht to e xami ne the a pp e lla te re c or d a nd to fi le a pr o se br ie f. No pr o s e brief ha s been f

iled. We have r eviewe d the re cord a nd counsel’s br ief a

nd ag ree that the a

p p e a l is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the rec ord that mig ht arg uably support the appe al. Counsel’s motion to wit hdrawis gr anted.

The judg ment of convic tion is affirmed.

__________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Pury ear and Pember

ton Affir med Filed: Oc tober 17, 2008 Do No t Pu

bli sh
#### STATE v. JOHN WASHINGTON.

(Filed 9 November, 1955.)

Appeal by defendant from *Sharp, Special J.,*August Term 1955 of MooRe.

Criminal prosecution for operating a motor vehicle on the public roads of North Carolina and on the streets of the Town of Southern Pines, while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.

Verdict: Guilty. Judgment: Imprisonment for four months.

Defendant appeals, assigning error.

*William B. Rodman, Jr., Attorney General, and T. W. Bruton, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.*

*Seawell & Wilson for Defendant, Appellant.*

Per Curiam.

The defendant assigns as error the court’s denial of his motion for judgment of nonsuit made at the close of the State’s case, and renewed at the close of all the evidence. A careful reading of the record discloses there was ample evidence to carry the case to the jury.

The other assignments of error are to the charge. A study of the charge fails to disclose any error therein of sufficient prejudicial effect to justify a new trial.

*113There are no exceptions to the admission or rejection of evidence, which was in sharp conflict. Under a charge free from prejudicial error the jury found the defendant guilty. The verdict and judgment will not be> disturbed.

No error.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 14, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 8439]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3649]



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


SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

Jiffy Lube Capital Corporation (License No. 06/03-0182); Notice 
of Surrender of Licensee

    Notice is hereby given that Jiffy Lube Capital Corporation, 700 
Milam Street, Houston, Texas 77252 has surrendered its License to 
operate as a small business investment company under the Small Business 
Investment Act of 1958, as amended (Act). Jiffy Lube Capital was 
licensed by the Small Business Administration on December 9, 1987.
    Under the authority vested by the Act and Pursuant to the 
Regulations promulgated thereunder, the surrender of the license was 
accepted on December 21, 1994, and accordingly, all rights, privileges, 
and franchises derived therefrom have been terminated.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 59.011, Small 
Business Investment Companies)

    Dated February 8, 1995.
Robert D. Stillman,
Associated Administrator for Investment.
[FR Doc. 95-3649 Filed 2-13-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-M
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-21-00296-CR

Martin Perez Leal

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

24th District Court of DeWitt County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 21-07-13,626

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

June 9, 2022
Fifth Season International Inc.: Exhibit 10.18 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com






Exhibit 10.18

Loan Agreement


	Main contents: 



	Contract No.: nil
  
	Borrower: Fifth Season General Merchandise Investment Management
  Co., Ltd.
  
	Lender: Shanghai Fuxing Pawnbroker Co., Ltd.
  
	Loan Amount (RMB): 6.25 million RMB Yuan
  
	Contract Term: from February 27, 2011 to April 26, 2011
  
	Interest Rate: 


  
    	
The monthly interest rate is 0.3%, and monthly general fee rate
is 2.7%; 

      
	
Penalty interest rate for delayed repayment: 0.5% of the
non-repaid loan per day; 

      


  

	Rights and Obligations of the Lender: 


  
    	
Lender shall disburse the loan in a timely manner pursuant to
the agreement. 

      
	
Lender shall execute the mortgage right in case of breach of
contract of the Company. 

      


  

	Rights and obligations of the borrower 


  
    	
Borrower is entitled to obtain and use the loan pursuant to the
agreement. 

      
	
Borrower shall return the principal and interests timely.
Borrower can extend the term of the loan when getting the consent of Lender
pursuant to the agreement. 

      
	
Consent of Lender should be obtained when any of the Borrower’s
guaranties or mortgages on his (her) major assets for a third party is possible
to be detrimental to Borrower’s capability of repayment under the agreement.


      
	
Borrower guarantee all of its statement is true and accurate
*** Borrower bears the relevant fees under the agreement. 

      


  

	Prepayment of the Loan:
Lender’s consent should be obtained if
  Borrower is willing to prepay the loan. The interest rate of prepayment shall
  accord with the agreement.
  
	Liabilities of Breach of Contract:
Penalty interest rate for
  delayed repayment: 0.5% of the non-repaid loan per day. Liquidated damages for
  20% of the loan shall be imposed on the Company and the guarantor and
  mortgagor in case of the Company ’s breach of contract etc.
  
	Guarantee of the loan:
The loan is secured by Mortgage Contract
  by .the Company. 




	Headlines of the articles omitted 



	Dispute settlement
  
	Miscellaneous
  
	Effectiveness
  
	Mortgage and Guarantee Clause
  
	Attention 









Signature Page 



Party A (Lender): Shanghai Fuxing Pawnbroker Co., Ltd. 

Representative: Ruinian Li 

By: /seal/ Shanghai Fuxing Pawnbroker Co., Ltd. 

/s/ Ruinian Li 

Date: February 27, 2011 



Party B (Borrower): The Fifth Season General Merchandise Investment Management
Co., Ltd. 

Representative: Lide Zhu 

By: /seal/ the Fifth Season General Merchandise Investment Management Co.,
Ltd. 

/s/ Lide Zhu 

Date: February 27, 2011 



Party C (Mortgager): The Fifth Season General Merchandise Investment Management
Co., Ltd. 

Representative: Lide Zhu 

By: /seal/ the Fifth Season General Merchandise Investment Management Co.,
Ltd. 

/s/ Lide Zhu 

Date: February 27, 2011
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 0**  **9 -**  **8 1**  **7 4** 

LARRY ARNOLD YOUNG , P etitioner

– Appell ant ,

v. PATRICIA R. STANSBERRY, Warden , Respondent

– Appell ee .

Appeal from the United States District Court for the East ern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Anthony John Trenga , District Judge. ( 1 : 0 9

- c v - 0 1276

- AJT

- TCB )

Submitted : March 16 , 2010 Decided: March 23, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, a nd DAVIS , Circuit Judges.

Dismiss e d by un published per curiam o pinion

.
Larry Arnold Young , Appellant Pro Se
. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Larry Arnold Young seeks to appeal the district court’s order directing Young to provide evidence that he exhausted his administ rative remedies and to pay the filing fee or his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2006) petition would be dismissed

. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (200 6 ), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 ( 200 6 ); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order Young seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperi s and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       1,060,998
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               435,769
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  7,858,074
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         7,858,074
<LOANS>                                     31,487,020
<ALLOWANCE>                                    454,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              41,486,474
<DEPOSITS>                                  28,249,203
<SHORT-TERM>                                 2,000,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            244,593
<LONG-TERM>                                  2,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,235,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,757,678
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              41,486,474
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                785,465
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              118,490
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               927,739
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             341,266
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             374,178
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          553,561
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   49,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                527,096
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,143
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       5,143
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,143
<EPS-BASIC>                                      $0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $0.01
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    9.45
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                   $22,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               405,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              454,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           454,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-7004

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LAVERN JUNIOR JACOBS,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at 

Charlotte. Kenneth D. Bell, District Judge. (3:04-cr-00277-KDB-DCK-1)

Submitted: February 15, 2024 Decided: February 27, 2024

Before KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Michael R. Dreeben, Washington, D.C., L. Nicole Allan, O’MELVENY & 

MYERS LLP, San Francisco, California, for Appellant. Dena J. King, United States 

Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7004 Doc: 28 Filed: 02/27/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Lavern Junior Jacobs* appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. We review a district court’s order 

denying a compassionate release motion for abuse of discretion. United States v. 

Centeno-Morales, 90 F.4th 274, 280 (4th Cir. 2024). The district court denied the 

compassionate release motion after evaluating Jacobs’ individual circumstances—

including his vaccination status, the vaccination rate at the facility where he was 

incarcerated, the continued risk of severe illness if he contracted COVID-19, his criminal 

history and disciplinary infractions, and his rehabilitation efforts—and determined that 

Jacobs had not demonstrated extraordinary and compelling circumstances warranting 

release. See United States v. Brown, 78 F.4th 122, 128-29 (4th Cir. 2023). We have 

reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record and conclude that the district court did not abuse 

its discretion. See United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 185, 187 (4th Cir. 2021) (discussing 

standard of review). We therefore affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

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

AFFIRMED

* The record includes more than one spelling of Jacobs’ first name. We have 

retained the spelling used by the district court for consistency.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7004 Doc: 28 Filed: 02/27/2024 Pg: 2 of 2