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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PEDRO TRUJILLO-RODRIGUEZ, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 18-72625 

Agency No. A205-054-215 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 4, 2020**

Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

Pedro Trujillo-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for 

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

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. 

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

the agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir.

* 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

FEB 6 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-72625 

2008). We deny the petition for review. 

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that TrujilloRodriguez cannot establish the requisite ten years of continuous physical presence 

for cancellation of removal, where a signed Form I-826 from 2011 indicates that he 

accepted voluntary return in lieu of appearing before an immigration judge. See

8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A); Gutierrez v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 1114, 1117-18 (9th 

Cir. 2008) (a voluntary departure breaks continuous physical presence, but the 

record must contain some evidence that the alien was informed of and accepted the 

terms of the voluntary departure agreement). 

Trujillo-Rodriguez’s contention that his acceptance of voluntary return was 

not knowing and voluntary is not supported by the record. See Valadez-Munoz v. 

Holder, 623 F.3d 1304, 1312 (9th Cir. 2010) (voluntary departure was accepted 

“knowingly and voluntarily” where applicant chose voluntary departure and signed 

document expressly waiving his right to appear before an immigration judge). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### HARRY SALKIND v. MELVIN SILVERMAN.

June 21, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.
# Strategic Communications Manager Isidro Reyna

"The stars aligned – I was working at Johnson Space Center in Houston about six months later. That’s how I got here, in a roundabout way.” — Isidro Reyna, Strategic Communications Manager, Strategic Integration and Management Division, Space Operations Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters

Read More

                    -  Facebook PinterestX
-  LinkedIn Emailhttps://www.nasa.gov/image-detail/jsc2023e051137/Copy URL to clipboard>DownloadShareSize1041x713pxThe National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASA explores the unknown in air and space, innovates for the benefit of humanity, and inspires the world through discovery.
- About NASA's Mission
Join Us- Home
- News & Events
- Multimedia
- NASA+
- Missions
- Humans in Space
- Earth & Climate
- The Solar System
- The Universe
- Science
- Aeronautics
- Technology
- Learning Resources
- About NASA
- NASA en Español
Follow NASA-   
-   
-   
-   
- 
- More NASA Social Accounts
- NASA Newsletters
- Sitemap
- For Media
- Privacy Policy
- FOIA
- No FEAR Act
- Office of the IGBudget & Annual Reports
Agency Financial Reports
Contact NASA
Accessibility
-  									Page Last Updated:								  								Sep 25, 2023								 
-  									Page Editor:								   
-  								Responsible NASA Official:							  								Abigail Bowman
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 the Interior

###### National Park Service

Pursuant to section 60.15 of 36 CFR part 60, comments are being accepted on the following properties being considered for removal from the National Register of Historic Places. Comments may be forwarded by United States Postal Service, to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St., NW., MS 2280, Washington, DC 20240; by all other carriers, National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service,1201 Eye St., NW., 8th floor, Washington, DC 20005; or by fax, 202-371-6447. Written or faxed comments should be submitted by November 15, 2010.

Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

J. Paul Loether,

Chief, National Register of Historic Places/National Historic Landmarks Program.

Request for REMOVAL has been made for the following resources:

## INDIANA

## Allen County

Haynes, John and Dorothy, House Address Restricted, Ft. Wayne, 04000635

## TEXAS

## Orange County

Woodmen of the World Lodge—Phoenix Camp No. 32, 110 Border St., Orange, 95001551

[FR Doc. 2010-27323 Filed 10-28-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4312-51-P
#### Purcell *v.*Thomas and Another.

*Saturday, December*7.

A tenant contracted to pay annually, for the rent of certain real estate, 96 dollars in *Indiana*scrip. *Held,*that the remedy by distress does not lie on such contract.

APPEAL from the *Knox*Circuit Court.

Sullivan, J.

— Replevin. An agreed case was made by the parties containing, substantially, the following facts: The property named in the declaration had been distrained by the defendants for rent due on a lease of certain lots in *Vincennes,*by virtue of which the tenant bound himself - to pay annually, for the rent of said lots, ninety-six dollars in *Indiana*scrip. The only question in the Circuit Court was, and the only question we have to consider now is, whether the remedy by distress will lie on such a contract. The Cir*307cuit Court decided that it would, and gave judgment for the defendants.

*S. Judah,*for the appellant.

*B. M. Thomas,*for the appellees.

To authorize a distress, the sum distrained for must be certain, or capable of being reduced to a certainty. If the rent reserved be 100 dollars payable in corn, or in repairs, the amount is certain though it be not payable in money. In such a case, it is well settled, the landlord may distrain. On the other hand, where the value of the rent is uncertain, as where the rent reserved is one-third of the corn raised, the remedy by distress does not lie. *Clark*v. *Fraley, 3*Blackf. 264. By repeated decisions of this Court, a contract to pay a specified sum in bank-bills is a contract to pay the worth of those bills, and in an action on such contract their value only can be recovered. It is a promise to pay in property, the value of which is fluctuating and uncertain. *Wilson*v. *Hickson,*1 Blackf. *230.*—Harper v. *Levy, Id. 294.*—Coldfen v. *Miller, Id. 296.—Hedges*v*. Gray, Id.*216. If bank-bills be, in the view of the law, of uncertain value, state scrip, in all its varieties, cannot be viewed in any other light. It follows, therefore, according to the case of *Clark*v. *Fraley, supra,*that a. distress will not lie on this contract. The landlord must be left to hii| remedy as in other cases of contract.

*Per Curiam.•*

— The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16
- 4750

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. DAVID DEANGELO MCNEIL , Defendant

- Appellant

.

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

. Robert J. Conrad, Jr. , District Judge. ( 3:12

- cr - 00229

- RJC

- 1 )

Submitted : April 25, 2017 Decided: April 27, 2017

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Thomas Richmond McPherson, III, MCPHERSON LAW, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jill Westmoreland Rose, United States Attorney, Sanjeev Bhasker, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpubl ished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: David Deangelo McNeil appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to a prison term of one year and one day. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. “A district court has broad discretion when imposing a sentence upon revocation of supervised release.” United States v. Webb , 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013). “We will affirm a revocation sentence if it is within the statutory maximum and is not ‘plainly unreasonable.’” Id. “When reviewing whether a revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable, we must first determine whether it is unreasonable at all.” United States v. Thompson , 595 F.3d 544, 546 (4th Cir. 2010). A revocation sentence is p rocedurally reasonable if the district court adequately explains the sentence after considering the Sentencing Guidelines’ Chapter Seven policy statements and the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (2012); Thompson , 595 F.3d at 546

- 47. If there is no significant procedural error, we then consider the sentence’s substantive reasonableness under the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). McNeil claims that his sentence is proced urally unreasonable because the district court failed to explain adequately its reasons for imposing a prison term of one year and one day. Having reviewed the record, we find the district court’s explanation sufficient.
See Thompson , 595 F.3d at 547 (di scussing standard). We also reject McNeil’s argument that his sentence, which exceeded by one day the applicable Sentencing Guidelines’ advisory policy statement range, is substantively unreasonable.3 Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-40803

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DARREN LENCH TRIVEDI,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-00-CR-91-1

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

March 12, 2001

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Darren Lench Trivedi (Trivedi) appeals from his conviction

and sentence for attempted illegal reentry following deportation

in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues the indictment is

defective because it failed to allege he had the specific intent

to attempt reentry into this country without authorization from

the Attorney General. Trivedi also argues that, pursuant to

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000), the

indictment was defective because it did not allege his prior

felony conviction and because it did not allege the timing of his
No. 00-40803

-2-

prior conviction, namely that it occurred before his last

deportation. 

The indictment in this case not only tracked the language of

8 U.S.C. § 1326 but also charged Trivedi with "knowingly" and

"unlawfully" attempting to reenter the United States. Trivedi’s

claim being first raised in this appeal and not in the district

court, we construe the language of the indictment with "maximum

liberality" and because the indictment included the words

"knowingly" and "unlawfully," we conclude the indictment

sufficiently charged the essential elements of the offense of

attempted illegal reentry under § 1326. Cf. United States v.

Guzman-Ocampo, 236 F.3d 233, 236-39 (5th Cir. 2000).

Trivedi next argues that in light of Apprendi, 120 S. Ct. at

2362-63, his prior felony conviction was an element of the

offense under § 1326(b)(2), and not merely a sentence

enhancement. He acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 247 (1998), but

states that he is preserving it for possible Supreme Court review

because the Supreme Court indicated in Apprendi that AlmendarezTorres may have been wrongly decided. Because the Supreme Court

has not overruled Almendarez-Torres, this court is compelled to

follow it. See United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 2001 U.S. Lexis 1889 (U.S. Feb. 

26, 2001) (No. 00-8299). Trivedi's argument that the indictment

must allege that his prior felony conviction occurred before his

last deportation is also without merit. Trivedi has not

explained why an indictment that, under Almendarez-Torres, need
No. 00-40803

-3-

not allege the defendant's prior conviction at all is deficient

for omitting the details of that prior conviction.

AFFIRMED.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

www.nasa.gov

Biography

Image Credit: NASA

Renato (Ron) Colantonio is responsible for the overall planning, management and 

evaluation of the directorate’s efforts to set the strategic direction for NASA’s portfolio of 

ground test aeronautics research capabilities including subsonic, transonic, supersonic, 

and hypersonic wind tunnels and propulsion test facilities.

He supports the ARMD associate administrator in a broad range of mission directorate 

activities, including strategic and program planning, budget development, program review 

and evaluation, and external coordination.

Colantonio started his career at NASA’s Glenn Research Center in Cleveland in 1987 

as an operations test engineer coordinating several aircraft engine combustion and hightemperature component tests for NASA and Department of Defense programs. 

He later served as a co-investigator for a space shuttle glovebox fuel droplet burning 

experiment and supported ground-based precursor testing and astronaut training for 

three major space flight combustion experiments. He successfully managed ARMD’s 

Aviation Safety Program weather accident prevention project. Later he managed the 

Atmospheric Environment Safety Technologies project developing aviation safety 

technologies in engine and airframe icing, weather information communications, 

and atmospheric hazard sensing. 

Colantonio supervised personnel working in Glenn’s icing branch as they conducted interdisciplinary research. He advocated for new research opportunities that enabled technologies needed to address aircraft icing safety issues. He also served as Glenn’s inter-agency 

coordination manager for aeronautics, and the manager for new business/partnerships.

He has received several recognitions and awards including the NASA Outstanding 

Leadership, Exceptional Service, and Exceptional Achievement Awards as well as the 

ARMD Associate Administrator Award in the leadership and management excellence 

category and a Federal Aviation Administration Service Award. 

Colantonio received a bachelor’s of science degree in mechanical engineering from the 

Illinois Institute of Technology, a master’s of science degree in mechanical engineering 

and a master’s of business degree from Cleveland State University, and a doctor of 

philosophy degree in mechanical engineering from Purdue University.

Dr. Renato (Ron) Colantonio

Director, Aerosciences Evaluation and Test Capabilities (AETC) Portfolio Office

NASA Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DANIEL ANTONIO PENATE

SALGUERO,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-73012

Agency No. A095-139-857

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 5, 2014** 

Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Daniel Antonio Penate Salguero, a native and citizen of El Salvador,

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his

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

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 

FILED

DEC 12 2014

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

evidence the agency’s factual findings, Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070

(9th Cir. 2008), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Even if Penate Salguero established an exception to excuse his untimely

asylum application, substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that

he failed to establish past persecution or a fear of future persecution on account of

a protected ground. See Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2004)

(random criminal acts bore no nexus to a protected ground); Zetino v. Holder, 622

F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An alien’s desire to be free from harassment by

criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus

to a protected ground.”); see also Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th

Cir. 2009) (the REAL ID Act “requires that a protected ground represent ‘one

central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”). We lack jurisdiction to

consider Penate Salguero’s contention based on a particular social group of his

family unit because he failed to raise this to the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft,

358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004). Thus, Penate Salguero’s asylum and

withholding of removal claims fail. See Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048,

1052 (9th Cir. 2001)

2 09-73012
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Penate Salguero’s

CAT claim because he has not shown it is more likely than not he will be tortured

by the government of El Salvador or with its consent or acquiescence. See Silaya,

524 F.3d at 1073. We reject Penate Salguero’s contention that the agency’s

analysis was inadequate and his contention that the agency applied an incorrect

standard. Thus, Penate Salguero’s CAT claim fails.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

3 09-73012
No. 87-1139.

#### Gagliardi *v.*Ziegler et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gregory Kellam, Appellant.

[787 NYS2d 876]

JudgmentSupreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J.), rendered on or about May 27, 2003, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833 [1976]). We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 460.20, defendant may apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that Court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that Court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on *440reasonable notice to the respondent within *30*days after service of a copy of this order, with notice of entry.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the judge or justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other judge or justice. Concur— Friedman, J.P., Marlow, Nardelli, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.
Exhibit 4.47
  SINA CORPORATION
 2007 SHARE INCENTIVE PLAN
 NOTICE OF SHARE OPTION GRANT
 
 Company
 Date of Grant:
    
    MM DD, YYYYExercise Price Per Share:
    
    $XXTotal Number of Shares:
    
    XXExpiration Date:
    
    MM DD, YYYYType of Option:
    
    «NoSharesISO» Shares Incentive Stock Option«NoSharesNSO» Shares Nonstatutory Stock OptionVesting Commencement Date:
    
    MM DD, YYYYVesting Schedule:
    
    So long as your Service does not terminate,
the Shares underlying this Option shall vest
and become exercisable in accordance with the
following schedule: 12.5% of the Total Number
of Shares shall vest and become exercisable on
the six-month anniversary of the Vesting
Commencement Date and 1/48 of the Total Number
of Shares shall vest and become exercisable on
each monthly anniversary thereafter, provided
that the Optionee obtains all the necessary
governmental approvals and consents required
under Applicable Laws in connection with the
exercise of the Option and the issuance of
Shares pursuant to the Option.Termination Period:
    
    You may exercise this Option for 90 days after
termination of your Service except as set out
in Section 4 of the Share Option Agreement
(but in no event later than the Expiration
Date and in no event later during the
Companys close window of trading). You are
responsible for keeping track of these
exercise periods following the termination of
your Service for any reason. The Company will
not provide further notice of such periods.




---



##### 



THE COMPANY:SINA CORPORATIONBy:(Signature)Name:Title:OPTIONEE:«OPTIONEE»By:(Signature)Name:
 2




---



##### 



SINA CORPORATION
2007 SHARE INCENTIVE PLANSHARE OPTION AGREEMENT
 Grant of Option . Compan Optionee Option Shares Notice Exercise Price Plan
   Exercise of Option .
 Right to Exercise .




---



##### 



Method of Exercise .
 Exhibit A
    Method of Payment .
 Termination of Relationship . Termination Date
 2




---



##### 



Termination upon Disability of Optionee.
 Death of Optionee.
 Termination for Cause.
 3




---



##### 



Non-Transferability of Option .
 No Employment Rights
 Effect of Agreement .
 Miscellaneous .
 Governing Law.
 Arbitration. HKIAC
 Entire Agreement; Enforcement of Rights.
 4




---



##### 



Severability.
 Notices.
 Successors and Assigns.
 5