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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FLORENCIO PAULE,

Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 14-72597

Agency No. A201-236-591

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 25, 2016**

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

The 90-day stay of proceedings granted on May 15, 2016, has expired. 

Florencio Paule’s request to lift the stay is denied as moot.

Paule, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

NOV 2 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal. Our 

jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence 

the agency’s factual findings. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 

(9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Paule’s past 

experiences in the Philippines do not rise to the level of persecution. See Nagoulko 

v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-18 (9th Cir. 2003); see Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 

(9th Cir. 2000) (“Threats standing alone . . . constitute past persecution in only a 

small category of cases, and only when the threats are so menacing as to cause 

significant actual “suffering or harm.”). Substantial evidence also supports the 

agency’s determination that Paule failed to establish that it is more likely than not 

that he would be persecuted if returned to the Philippines. See Hakeem v. INS, 273 

F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir. 2001) (claim of future persecution weakened when 

similarly-situated family members continue to live in the country without incident), 

superseded by statute on other grounds. We do not consider Paule’s contention 

related to humanitarian asylum because he failed to raise this issue to the agency. 

See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction 

to review claims not presented to the agency). Thus, we deny the petition for 
3 

review as to Paule’s withholding of removal claim.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE DECEMBER
31, 1998 FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
DECEMBER 31, 1998 FORM 10-K FILING.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                      10,887,602
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  164,077
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    554,493
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,423,754
<PP&E>                                      81,968,319
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,384,357
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             102,062,100
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,717,110
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,087
<OTHER-SE>                                  30,821,324
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               102,062,100
<SALES>                                      2,106,632
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            53,961,503
<CGS>                                        1,118,365
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               45,635,758
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,387,205
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,065,920
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,900,088
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,165,832
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 46,192
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,212,024
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.80
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.75
        

</TABLE>
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-2018-0025-7377

UT Electronic Controls, 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 and the 

request failed to show that this particular product is available only from China.

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
EXHIBIT 3.4
                                   RESOLUTION
                          OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
                           FLAG FINANCIAL CORPORATION
                                DECEMBER 20, 2000

     WHEREAS, Section 2.2 of the Bylaws of the Company provide that the Board of
Directors of the Company shall consist of not fewer than 10 and not more than 25
members;  and

     WHEREAS, the Board of Directors believes it is in the best interests of the
Company  to  amend  the  provision  of  the  Bylaws  relating  to  the number of
directors;

     NOW,  THEREFORE  BE  IT  RESOLVED,  that the following sentence be inserted
after  the  first sentence of Section 2.2 of Article II of the Company's Bylaws:

"The  number  of directors may be fixed or changed from time to time, within the
minimum  and  maximum, by the affirmative vote of majority of all directors then
in office or the affirmative vote of the holders of a majority of the issued and
outstanding shares of the Corporation entitled to vote at any regular or special
meeting  of  the  stockholders  called  for  that  purpose."

     RESOLVED  FURTHER,  that all other provisions of the Bylaws shall remain in
full  force.

     RESOLVED  FURTHER,  that the number of directors is hereby set at seventeen
(17)  with  the  classes  of  directors  divided  as  follows:

                                  Number  of
     Term  Expiring               Directors  in  Class          Class  Name
     --------------               --------------------          -----------
     2001  Annual  Meeting               6                      Class  I
     2002  Annual  Meeting               6                      Class  II
     2003  Annual  Meeting               5                      Class  III

     RESOLVED  FURTHER,  that  the following individuals are hereby appointed to
serve as directors in the class indicated below until the next annual meeting of
shareholders:

     Director                    Class
     --------------------        --------------------
     Charles  O.  Hinely         Class  II
     James  Brett                Class  I
     David  Dunaway              Class  I


     The Board notes that as a result of the increase in the number of directors
and the director appointments authorized above, a vacant director position exist
in  Class  III,  which  the  Board  intends  to  fill  at  a  later  date.


<PAGE>
---

|EXHIBIT 32.1                                       
|---------------------------------------------------
|CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO                          
|18 U.S.C. 1350,                                    
|AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO                             
|SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
      2002

In connection with the Report of SOLAR ENERTECH
  CORP. (the Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2007,
  as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
  Report"), I, Leo Shi Young, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
  Act of 2002, that:

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

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

|Date: July 3, 2007 | By:
      /s/ Leo Shi Young                          
|------------------ | -----------------------------------------------------
|                   |                                                      
|                   | Leo Shi Young                                        
|                   | President and CEO - Principal Executive
      Officer

---
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

December 28, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-7107

Global Trade Works, LLC:

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/12.21.18_Notice_of_Product_E

xclusions.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 the 10-digit HTSUS subheading under which your request was filed. 

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
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 17-13769

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 8:13-cr-00448-VMC-TGW-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

THOMAS J. MULLEN, III,

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(July 24, 2018)

Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Rosemary Cakmis, appointed counsel for Thomas J. Mullen, III in this direct 

criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the 

Case: 17-13769 Date Filed: 07/24/2018 Page: 1 of 2 
2

appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 

Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of 

the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the 

entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is 

GRANTED, and Mullen’s revocation of supervised release and sentence are 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 17-13769 Date Filed: 07/24/2018 Page: 2 of 2
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-2018-0025-7565

SGRE, 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,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5798

Tianhai Electric North 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
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-2018-0025-6772

Johnson Electric 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,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 60 (Wednesday, March 29, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 16136]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7701]



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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Gen. Docket No. 89-97; DA 95-414]


Private Wireless Division, Southern California Public Safety Plan 
Amendment

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Acting Chief, Private Wireless Division and the Acting 
Chief, Spectrum Engineering Division released this Order amending the 
Public Safety Radio Plan for Southern California (Region 5). As a 
result of accepting the amendment for the Plan for Region 5, the 
interests of the eligible entities within the region will be furthered.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 13, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Deborah A.R. Behlin, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Private 
Wireless Division (202) 418-0680.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Order

    In the Matter of: Southern California Public Safety Plan.

Adopted: February 28, 1995.
Released: March 13, 1995.

    By the Acting Chief, Private Radio Division, Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau and the Acting Chief, Spectrum Engineering 
Division, Office of Engineering and Technology:
    1. By letter dated August 1, 1994, Region 5 (Southern California) 
proposed to amend the Region 5 Public Safety Plan that was accepted 
under delegated authority, by the Commission on November 8, 1989, 4 FCC 
Rcd 8352 (1989). The proposed amendment would revise the current 
channel allotments.
    2. On October 5, 1994, the Commission placed the letter on Public 
Notice with comments due on November 4, 1994, 59 FR 50761 (1994). On 
November 3, 1994, Region 27 (Nevada) filed a request to extend the 
comment period. The comment period was extended until November 25, 
1994; however, no further comments were filed.
    3. We have reviewed the proposed amendment to the Region 5 Plan 
and, having received no comments to the contrary, conclude it furthers 
the interests of the eligible entities within the Region.
    4. Accordingly, it is ordered, That the Public Safety Radio Plan 
for Region 5 is amended, as set forth in the Region's letter of August 
1, 1994. This amendment is effective immediately.
    5. For further information, contact Deborah Behlin at (202) 418-
0680.

Federal Communications Commission.
Robert H. McNamara,
Acting Chief, Private Radio Division.
[FR Doc. 95-7701 Filed 3-28-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

RICHARD L. WATKINS, 

Appellant, 

v. Case No. 5D21-2626

LT Case No. 2021-CC-13178

SFR ORLANDO OWNER 1, LP, 

Appellee. 

________________________________/

Decision filed October 11, 2022

Appeal from the County Court

for Orange County, 

Amy J. Carter, Judge. 

Richard Lee Watkins, Hawthorne, CA, pro se. 

William J. McCabe, Longwood, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WALLIS, EDWARDS and WOZNIAK, JJ., concur.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

March 15, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5572

Seaboard International, 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,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel