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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUAN CARLOS DIAZ,

Petitioner,

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 14

- 70907

Agency No. A092

- 503

- 875

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 16, 2016 **

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

Juan Carlos Diaz , a native and citizen of Guatemala , petitions for review of

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

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for deferral of removal under

the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.

* 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). Thus, we deny Diaz’s

request for oral argument. 

# FILED

AUG 24 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 14

- 70907

§ 1252. We review for substantial e vidence the agency’s factual findings, Silaya

v. Mukasey , 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for

review.

Substantial evidence supp orts the agency ’s conclusion that Diaz failed to

meet his burden of proof to demonstrate that it is more likely than not he would be

tortured by or with the consent o r acquiesce of a public official or other person

acting in an official capacity i f returned to Guatemala

. See Alphonsus v. Holder

,

705 F.3d 1031, 1049 (9th Cir. 2013) ( the evidence did n ot compel the finding that

petitioner would more likely than not be tortured upon return )

. We reject Diaz’s

contentions that the agency failed to consider evidence and misstated the record

.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

FRANKENMUTH MUTUAL INSURANCE

COMPANY, 

Plaintiff,

Civil No. 09-12723

Hon. John Feikens 

v.

CATLIN SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant. 

________________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The Court having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, filed on

1/27/2010, and noted that no objections were filed by either party, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Report is accepted and entered as the findings and

conclusions of this court. 

s/John Feikens 

John Feikens

United States District Judge

Dated: February 24, 2010
2

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this

document was served on the attorneys of record

by electronic means or U.S. Mail on February 24,

2010.

s/Carol Cohron 

Deputy Clerk
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

WADE E. MONROE,

 Case No. 09-CV-11738

Plaintiff,

PAUL D. BORMAN

-vs- UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

COMMISSIONER OF

SOCIAL SECURTIY, CHARLES E. BINDER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Defendant. 

_______________________________/

ORDER

(1) ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; 

(2) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND (2)

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s December 16, 2009 Report and Recommendation

(Dkt. No. 15) denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 11) and granting

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 14). Neither party has filed timely

objections under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and E.D. Mich L.R. 72.1(d). Having reviewed the

Magistrate Judge’s conclusions of fact and discussion of law, the Court hereby:

(1) ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 15);

(2) GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 14); and

(3) DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 11). 

SO ORDERED.

S/Paul D. Borman 

PAUL D. BORMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: January 25, 2010

2:09-cv-11738-PDB-CEB Doc # 16 Filed 01/25/10 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 249
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served on the attorneys of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on

January 25, 2010.

S/Denise Goodine 

Case Manager

2:09-cv-11738-PDB-CEB Doc # 16 Filed 01/25/10 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 250
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

SHAWN WYGANT, individually and as

next friend of minor children A.W., J.W.,

G.W., and N.W.; AND A.W., J.W., 

G.W., and N.W., minor children by 

Shawn Wygant, next friend,

Plaintiffs,

Case Number 09-11684-BC

v. Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

MARY STRAND AND MICHIGAN

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,

Defendants.

______________________________________ /

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

AND DISMISSING ALL CLAIMS ASSERTED BY PLAINTIFFS A.W., J.W., G.W., AND

N.W. THROUGH SHAWN WYGANT, NEXT FRIEND

Magistrate Judge Charles E. Binder issued a report and recommendation on November 3,

2009 recommending that all claims brought by minor children A.W., J.W., G.W., and N.W. through

their father and next friend Shawn Wygant be dismissed without prejudice. The report and

recommendation was served on Plaintiffs the same day, starting the fourteen-day period in which

the Plaintiffs could object. 28 U.S.C. § 636. Plaintiff did not file an objection within the required

time period. A party’s failure to file objections to the report and recommendation waives any further

right to appeal. Smith v. Detroit Federation of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir.

1987). Likewise, the failure to object to the magistrate judge’s report releases the Court from its

duty to independently review the record. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Nevertheless,

the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s findings. Parents cannot appear pro se on behalf of

their minor children in federal courts. Shepard v. Wellman, 313 F.3d 963, 970–71 (6th Cir. 2002).

1:09-cv-11684-TLL-CEB Doc # 10 Filed 02/03/10 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 52
-2-

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation [Dkt.

# 9] is ADOPTED. 

It is further ORDERED that all claims asserted by A.W., J.W., G.W., and N.W. though their

next friend, Shawn Wygant, are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

United States District Judge

Dated: February 3, 2010

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first

class U.S. mail on February 3, 2010. 

s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

TRACY A. JACOBS

1:09-cv-11684-TLL-CEB Doc # 10 Filed 02/03/10 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 53
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CIVIL NO.09-13302

HON. PATRICK J. DUGGAN

REEDIE ANTHONY,

Plaintiff(s),

-vGROUPE ROBERT INC., ET.AL,

 Defendant(s)

 /

ORDER FOR CASE EVALUATION PURSUANT TO STIPULATION OF PARTIES

At a session of said Court, held in the U.S.

 District Courthouse, City of Detroit, County

 of Wayne, State of Michigan on December 8, 2009.

 PRESENT: THE HONORABLE PATRICK J. DUGGAN

 United States District Court Judge

The parties having stipulated that this case be referred for case evaluation to a 

Wayne County Case Evaluation Panel and that the parties be bound by the provisions 

of Michigan Court Rule 2.403, now therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that this case be referred for case evaluation pursuant to said 

Stipulation.

s/Patrick J. Duggan 

Patrick J. Duggan

United States District Judge

Dated: January 27, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of

record on December 8, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Marilyn Orem 

Case Manager

2:09-cv-13302-PJD-MAR Doc # 10 Filed 12/08/09 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 33
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

WARRIOR SPORTS, INC.,

Plaintiff/Counter Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-12102

v. DISTRICT JUDGE GERALD E. ROSEN

DICKINSON WRIGHT, PLLC, MAGISTRATE JUDGE MARK A. RANDON

Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff.

 /

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO FILE EXHIBITS 

UNDER SEAL (DKT. NO 107) AND DENYING ITS MOTION TO COMPEL 

NON-PARTY WARNER’S COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA (DKT. NO. 113)

Defendant Dickinson Wright, PLLC (“Dickinson”) has two motions pending: (1) a

motion to file certain exhibits under seal (Dkt. No. 107); and (2) a motion to compel non-party

Warner Norcross & Judd, LLP (“Warner”) to comply with the April 30, 2012 subpoena (Dkt. No.

113). The Court has reviewed the submissions of Dickinson and Warner and heard oral

argument on June 26, 2012. Being otherwise fully advised, and for the reasons stated on the

record and in Warner’s brief,

IT IS ORDERED that Dickinson’s motion to file certain exhibits under seal is

GRANTED, and its motion to compel Warner’s compliance with the April 30, 2012 subpoena is

DENIED.

s/Mark A. Randon 

MARK A. RANDON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Dated: June 27, 2012

2:09-cv-12102-GER-MAR Doc # 122 Filed 06/27/12 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 2224
Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served on the parties of record on this date,

June 27, 2012, by electronic and/or first class U.S. mail.

s/Melody R. Miles

Case Manager to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Randon

(313) 234-5542

2:09-cv-12102-GER-MAR Doc # 122 Filed 06/27/12 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 2225
Opinion filed January 9, 2020

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-19-00368-CV

__________

IN RE JUAN ESPINOZA

Original Proceeding

-- and --

__________

No. 11-19-00369-CV

__________

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF J.A.E., 

A MINOR

On Appeal from the County Court at Law

Midland County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. G12876
2

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

On November 26, 2019, Juan Espinoza filed in this court a motion for stay 

and motion for temporary relief in which he requested that this court issue a stay 

related to cause no. G12876 in the Midland County Court at Law. Espinoza 

indicated in his motion that the case was scheduled for a hearing on December 6 and

that he “will request” a writ of mandamus in conjunction with his motion; however, 

Espinoza has yet to file a writ of mandamus as he indicated he would. We deny the 

motion for stay and motion for temporary relief. 

Espinoza also filed a notice of appeal from an order in which the trial court 

denied Espinoza’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. When the appeal was 

docketed in this court, the clerk of this court notified the parties that the trial court’s 

order did not appear to be a final, appealable order. We requested that Espinoza file 

a response showing grounds to continue the appeal, and we directed Espinoza to pay

the $205 filing fee on or before December 6, 2019. We notified Espinoza by letter

dated December 12, 2019, that the filing fee was past due. In that letter, we directed 

Espinoza to pay the $205 filing fee on or before December 17, 2019, and we 

informed Espinoza that failure to do so “may result in dismissal of the case.” As 

of this date, Espinoza has not filed any response showing grounds to continue the 

appeal, nor has he remitted the filing fee. Because Appellant has failed to pay the 

required filing fee in this appeal and has failed to comply with this court’s directives, 

we dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 42.3. 

Cause No. 11-19-00368-CV and Cause No. 11-19-00369-CV are dismissed. 

January 9, 2020 PER CURIAM

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J.1

Willson, J., not participating. 

 1

Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, 

sitting by assignment.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 151 (Tuesday, August 5, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 45400]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-17723]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration


The Ohio State University, et al.; Notice of Consolidated 
Decision on Applications for Duty-Free Entry of Electron Microscopes

    This is a decision consolidated pursuant to Section 6(c) of the 
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 
(Pub. L. 89-651, as amended by Pub. L. 106-36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR 
part 301). Related records can be viewed between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. 
in Room 2104, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.
    Docket Number: 08-027. Applicant: The Ohio State University, 
Columbus, OH 43210. Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model Helios 600. 
Manufacturer: FEI Company/Phillips Electron Optics, The Netherlands. 
Intended Use: See notice at 73 FR 37408, July 1, 2008.
    Docket Number: 08-029. Applicant: Vanderbilt University, Nashville, 
TN 37232-8725. Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model Tecnai G2 F20 
TWIN. Manufacturer: FEI Company, The Netherlands. Intended Use: See 
notice at 72 FR 37408, July 1, 2008.
    Docket Number: 08-030. Applicant: University of Washington, 
Seattle, WA 98195. Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model Tecnai G2 F20 
S-TWIN. Manufacturer: FEI Company, The Netherlands. Intended Use: See 
notice at 72 FR 34708, July 1, 2008.
    Comments: None received. Decision: Approved. No instrument of 
equivalent scientific value to the foreign instrument, for such 
purposes as these instruments are intended to be used, was being 
manufactured in the United States at the time the instruments were 
ordered. Reasons: Each foreign instrument is an electron microscope and 
is intended for research or scientific educational uses requiring an 
electron microscope. We know of no electron microscope, or any other 
instrument suited to these purposes, which was being manufactured in 
the United States at the time of order of each instrument.

    Dated: July 25, 2008.
Faye Robinson,
Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff, Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-17723 Filed 8-4-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M
Exhibit 10.5 Q2 FY2014






TWENTY-SEVENTH AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




This Twenty-Seventh Amendment to Employment Agreement is made and entered into as of January 1, 2014, by and between PriceSmart, Inc., a Delaware Corporation ("Employer") and Thomas Martin ("Executive").


Recitals


		
	A)
	On March 31, 1998 an Employment Agreement was made and entered into by and between Employer and Executive. 




		
	B)
	Said Employment Agreement has been amended on twenty-six prior occasions;




		
	C)
	Employer and Executive now desire to amend the Employment Agreement, as set forth hereinbelow:


Agreement 


1.    Section 2.1 of the Agreement which provides:


2.1     Salary.  For Executive's services hereunder, Employer shall pay as base salary to Executive the amount of $357,000 during each year of the Employment Term.  Said salary shall be payable in equal installments in conformity with Employer's normal payroll period. Executive shall receive such salary increases, if any, as Employer, in its sole discretion, shall determine.
 
is hereby amended, effective January 1, 2014, to provide as follows:


2.1    Salary.  For Executive's services hereunder, Employer shall pay as base salary to Executive the amount of $364,140 during each year of the Employment Term.  Said salary shall be payable in equal installments in conformity with Employer's normal payroll period. Executive shall receive such salary increases, if any, as Employer, in its sole discretion, shall determine.




		
	2.
	All other terms of the Employment Agreement, as amended, shall remain unaltered and fully effective.






Executed in San Diego, California, as of the date first written above.


EXECUTIVE                            EMPLOYER
PriceSmart, INC.


Thomas Martin                    By:                 


______________________                Name:     Jose Luis Laparte    


Its:     CEO and President
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Emily Harvey

Plaintiff, Case No. 08-15013

v. Hon. Nancy G. Edmunds

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

________________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter has come before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendation. Being fully advised in the premises and having reviewed the record and the

pleadings, including the Report and Recommendation and any objections thereto, the Court hereby

ACCEPTS AND ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. It is further

ordered that Plaintiff's motion for attorney fees is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

s/Nancy G. Edmunds 

Nancy G. Edmunds

United States District Judge

Dated: December 14, 2011

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel

of record on December 14, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Carol A. Hemeyer 

Case Manager

2:08-cv-15013-NGE-MJH Doc # 34 Filed 12/14/11 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 543
#### In the Matter of PRIMA COMPANY, Debt or, American National Bank & Trust Company of Chicago, as Successor Trustee, Appellant, v. Marshall KEIG, as Trustee of Debtor Corporation, Appellee.

No. 6361.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

March 19, 1938.

Henry S. Blum, of Chicago, Ill., for appellant.

Reich, Koenig & Rattray, of Chicago, Ill., for appellee.

Before SPARKS and TREANOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Now this day come the parties by their counsel and present and file a stipulation to dismiss this appeal, which said stipulation is in the words and figures following, to wit:

“It is hereby stipulated by 'American National Bank and Trust Company, as Successor Trustee, appellant herein and Marshall Keig, as Trustee of Debtor corporation, appellee herein, by their respective attorneys, that an order may be entered herein dismissing the appeal herein pending, and ordering the appeal dismissed without costs to either party.”

*1015On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered, adjudged, and decreed by this court that this appeal be, and the same is hereby, dismissed, without costs to either party, pursuant to the foregoing stipulation.
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement of GS
Financial Products U.S., L.P. (the "Company") on Form S-3 (File No. 33-99948) of
our report dated February 22, 1999, on our audits of the financial statements of
GS Financial  Products U.S.,  L.P. as of November 27, 1998 and November 28, 1997
and for the fiscal years ended November 27, 1998, November 28, 1997 and November
29, 1996, which report is included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP



New York, New York
February 25, 1999.
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Deer Consumer Products, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Ying He, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §78m or §78o(d)); and





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





Date: September 19, 2011
By:
/s/ Ying HeYing He

Chief Executive Officer





This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 405

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a penalty enhancement

for the use of juveniles in Federal offenses.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. ZIMMER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a penalty

enhancement for the use of juveniles in Federal offenses.

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

3 SECTION 1. OFFENSE.

4 Chapter 1 of title 18, United States Code, is amended

5 by adding at the end the following:

6 ‘‘§ 21. Use of children in Federal offenses

7 ‘‘(a) Except as otherwise provided by law, whoever,

8 being at least 18 years of age, uses a child to commit a

9 Federal offense, or to assist in avoiding detection or ap10 prehension for a Federal offense, shall—
2

• HR 405 IH

1 ‘‘(1) after a previous conviction under this sub2 section has become final, be subject to 3 times the

3 maximum imprisonment and 3 times the maximum

4 fine otherwise provided for the Federal offense in

5 which the child is used; and

6 ‘‘(2) in any other case, be subject to 2 times the

7 maximum imprisonment and 2 times the maximum

8 fine for such offense.

9 ‘‘(b) As used in this section—

10 ‘‘(1) the term ‘child’ means a person who is

11 under 18 years of age; and

12 ‘‘(2) the term ‘uses’ means employs, hires, uses,

13 persuades, induces, entices, or coerces.’’.

14 SEC. 2. CLERICAL AMENDMENT.

15 The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 1

16 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at

17 the end the following new item:

‘‘21. Use of children in Federal offenses.’’.

Æ