alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## United States Court of Appeals **For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________
No. 22

- 2767

___________________________ Victor Hugo Cardona

- Gomez

Petitioner

v.
Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States

Respondent

____________
Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

____________
Submitted: February 7 , 2023 Filed: February 10, 202 3 [Unpublished]

____________ Before COLLOTON, BENTON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM

.

Guatemalan citizen Victor Hugo Cardona

- Gomez petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Having jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, this court denies the petition.-2- The BIA dismissed Cardona

- Gom ez’s appeal from the decision of an immigration judge denying his request for asylum and withholding of removal
relief. 1 Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Cardona

- Gomez was not eligible for asylum, because he did not establish pa st persecution or a well

founded fear of future persecution. See Malonga v. Mukasey , 546 F.3d 546, 550 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review); Menjivar v. Gonzales , 416 F.3d 918, 920 (8th Cir. 2005), as corrected (Sept. 21, 2005) (asylum eligibility require ments); see also Cano
v. Barr , 956 F.3d 1034, 1039 (8th Cir. 2020) (persecution involves infliction or credible threat of death, torture, or injury; it is an extreme concept that excludes low

level intimidation and harassment) (citations and quotations omitted); La v. Holder

, 701 F.3d 566, 572 (8th Cir. 2012) (a well

- founded fear of future persecution is both subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable).

Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of withholding of removal
relief. See Guled v. Mukasey , 515 F.3d 872, 88 1- 82 (8th Cir. 2008) (noncitizen who does not meet standard for asylum cannot meet more rigorous clear probability standard for withholding of removal).

The petition is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

1 The denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture is not before this panel. See Chay

- Velasquez v. Ashcroft , 367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir. 2004) (claim not raised in opening brief is waived).
CERTIFICATIONS

I, Donald C. Schmitt, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Next Generation
Technology Holdings, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date.

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls.

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: September 12, 2003

                                         BY:  /S/ DONALD C. SCHMITT
                                         ------------------------------
                                         NAME: Donald C. Schmitt
                                         TITLE: CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
peregrine_10k-ex1029.htm


 








	
  

	
EXHIBIT 10.29

















ANNUAL BONUS PLAN FOR EXECUTIVE OFFICERS


PEREGRINE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.


 ADOPTED JULY 12, 2011












Annual bonuses to be awarded to the chief executive officer (“CEO”), chief financial officer (“CFO”) and other executive officers of Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Company”) shall be made in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Company’s Annual Bonus Plan for Executive Officers (“Plan”).  The Plan is not the exclusive vehicle for awarding bonuses to executive officers.  The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors (“Committee”) may also make discretionary bonuses outside of the framework of the Plan.  The Plan is not contained in a formal written document; however, a summary of the material terms of the Plan is set forth below.







Each participant’s annual bonus under the Plan will be determined by multiplying the participant’s annual base salary by (a) a target bonus percentage for such participant, (b) a corporate factor ranging from 0 to 1.5, based on the Company’s achievement of corporate goals, individual goals, share price performance, and other factors as determined by the Committee, including but not limited to performance of day-to-day responsibilities and participation in the achievement of the corporate goals and achievement of individual goals determined by the Committee.  The Plan will apply to bonuses that are earned in fiscal year 2012, and for each year thereafter.







The Company’s corporate goals will be set at or around the beginning of each fiscal year by the Committee, based on recommendations by the Company’s management.  At the end of each fiscal year, the Committee will determine the corporate factor based on a quantitative and qualitative review of performance, in addition to the Company’s share price performance.  Each participant’s individual goals will be set at the beginning of each year.  A fiscal year-end evaluation of each participant may weight individual goals, and the applicable individual factor will be determined based on a quantitative and qualitative review of performance.  The Committee’s chair will recommend the CEO’s individual goals and individual factor to the Committee and the CEO will recommend the CFO and other executive officers individual goals and individual factor to the Committee.  All individual goals and individual factors will be set by the Committee.
<PAGE>
                                                                     EXHIBIT 21


         SUBSIDIARIES OF SOUTHERN ENERGY HOMES, INC.


DIRECT SUBSIDIARIES:

1.       Al/Tex Homes, Inc., d/b/a Southern Energy Homes of Texas.

2.       Southern Energy Homes of North Carolina, Inc. d/b/a Imperial Homes.

3.       WENCO Finance, Inc.

4.       MH Transport, Inc.

5.       Southern Energy Homes of Pennsylvania, Inc. d/b/a Energy Homes.

6.       Southern Energy Homes Retail Corp.

7.       Southern Energy Homes S.C. Retail Corp.

INDIRECT SUBSIDIARIES:

1.       BR Agency, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Southern Energy Homes
         Retail Corp.


                                      40
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 67 (Friday, April 7, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 17844]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8574]

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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Declaration of Economic Injury Disaster Loan Area #8499]

Massachusetts (and Contiguous Counties in Connecticut); 
Declaration of Disaster Loan Area

    Hampden County and the contiguous counties of Berkshire, Hampshire, 
and Worcester in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and Hartford, 
Litchfield, and Tolland in the State of Connecticut constitute an 
economic injury disaster area as a result of damages caused by a fire 
which occurred on January 17, 1995 in the town of Palmer, 
Massachusetts. Eligible small businesses without credit available 
elsewhere and small agricultural cooperatives without credit available 
elsewhere may file applications for economic injury assistance until 
the close of business on January 3, 1996 at the address listed below: 
U.S. Small Business Administration, Disaster Area 1 Office, 360 Rainbow 
Blvd. South, 3rd Floor, Niagara Falls, NY 14303 or other locally 
announced locations. The interest rate for eligible small businesses 
and small agricultural cooperatives is 4 percent.

    The economic injury number assigned to this disaster for the 
State of Connecticut is 850000.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 59002)

    Dated: April 3, 1995.
Philip Lader,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-8574 Filed 4-6-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-M
```
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 529 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 1, 2024 

Received 

AN ACT 

To extend the customs waters of the United States from 

12 nautical miles to 24 nautical miles from the baselines 

of the United States, consistent with Presidential Proclamation 7219. 

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


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 529 RDS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Extending Limits of 

3 U.S. Customs Waters Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF CUSTOMS WATERS. 

5 (a) TARIFF ACT OF 1930.—Section 401(j) of the 

6 Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1401(j)) is amended— 

7 (1) by striking ‘‘means, in the case’’ and insert8 ing the following: ‘‘means— 

9 ‘‘(1) in the case’’; 

10 (2) by striking ‘‘of the coast of the United 

11 States’’ the first place it appears and inserting 

12 ‘‘from the baselines of the United States, determined 

13 in accordance with international law,’’; 

14 (3) by striking ‘‘and, in the case’’ and inserting 

15 the following: ‘‘; and 

16 ‘‘(2) in the case’’; and 

17 (4) by striking ‘‘the waters within four leagues 

18 of the coast of the United States.’’ and inserting the 

19 following: ‘‘the waters within— 

20 ‘‘(A) the territorial sea of the United 

21 States, to the limits permitted by international 

22 law in accordance with Presidential Proclama23 tion 5928 of December 27, 1988; and 

24 ‘‘(B) the contiguous zone of the United 

25 States, to the limits permitted by international 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 529 RDS

1 law in accordance with Presidential Proclama2 tion 7219 of September 2, 1999.’’. 

3 (b) ANTI-SMUGGLING ACT.—Section 401(c) of the 

4 Anti-Smuggling Act (19 U.S.C. 1709(c)) is amended— 

5 (1) by striking ‘‘means, in the case’’ and insert6 ing the following: ‘‘means— 

7 ‘‘(1) in the case’’; 

8 (2) by striking ‘‘of the coast of the United 

9 States’’ the first place it appears and inserting 

10 ‘‘from the baselines of the United States, determined 

11 in accordance with international law,’’; 

12 (3) by striking ‘‘and, in the case’’ and inserting 

13 the following: ‘‘; and 

14 ‘‘(2) in the case’’; and 

15 (4) by striking ‘‘the waters within four leagues 

16 of the coast of the United States.’’ and inserting the 

17 following: ‘‘the waters within— 

18 ‘‘(A) the territorial sea of the United 

19 States, to the limits permitted by international 

20 law in accordance with Presidential Proclama21 tion 5928 of December 27, 1988; and 

22 ‘‘(B) the contiguous zone of the United 

23 States, to the limits permitted by international 

24 law in accordance with Presidential Proclama25 tion 7219 of September 2, 1999.’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
4 

HR 529 RDS

1 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 this section shall take effect on the day after the date of 

3 the enactment of this Act. 

Passed the House of Representatives April 30, 2024. 

Attest: KEVIN F. MCCUMBER, 

Clerk. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 29, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-7443

Nissan North America, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-41130

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CANDELARIO LUCIO-GARZA, also known as Carlos Garza,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:15-CR-330-1

Before JONES, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Candelario LucioGarza has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Lucio-Garza has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 21, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-41130 Document: 00513558397 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/21/2016
No. 15-41130

2

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw 

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 15-41130 Document: 00513558397 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/21/2016
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

April 12, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6579

Apex Sourcing & Manufacturing: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions

_04.15.19.pdf.

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6095

Aisin World Corp. of America:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request concerns a product strategically important or related to 

‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese industrial programs.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

July 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

133842 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 133842 

 COA: 276738 

Oakland CC: 2006-206278-FH 

TERRY LEWIS WILSON, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 20, 2007 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

l0723 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

July 30, 2007 

 Clerk
|    |                                                                                                                                             |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Chico's FAS, Inc. for the fiscal year ended January 30, 2016; and |

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |  |
| Dated: | May 27, 2016 | /s/ Todd E. Vogensen |
|   |   | Todd E. Vogensen |
|   |   | Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Corporate Secretary |
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6991

Regal Beloit America, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request concerns a product strategically important or related to 

“Made in China 2025” or other Chinese industrial programs.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel