alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-60660

Summary Calendar

FAUSTINO ROJAS, also known as Faustino Rojas-Villa,

Petitioner

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A038 516 056

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Faustino Rojas, a native and citizen of Mexico, has filed a petition for 

review of the order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upholding the 

immigration judge’s determination that he was removable pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) and § 1227(a)(2)(B). Rojas was originally charged in a 

notice to appear (NTA) in 2005 with removability under 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1182(a)(2)(C) as an arriving alien. In 2014, the Department of Homeland 

 

* 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

October 19, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-60660 Document: 00514201608 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/19/2017
No. 16-60660

2

Security (DHS) withdrew the charge under § 1182(a)(2)(C) and added the 

charges under § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) and § 1227(a)(2)(B) in a Form I-261.

In his first argument, Rojas contends that DHS used the Form I-261 to 

improperly change his status from an arriving alien to an admitted alien. We 

have jurisdiction to review this argument pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). 

We review the BIA’s legal determinations de novo. Iruegas-Valdez v. Yates, 

846 F.3d 806, 810 (5th Cir. 2017). Rojas’s argument is unavailing because the 

NTA alleged, and he conceded, that he was admitted to the United States as a 

legal permanent resident in 1983.

Rojas also contends that DHS was required under 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1101(a)(13)(C)(vi) to charge him as an arriving alien following his 

unauthorized entry into the United States in July 2015. Rojas did not raise 

this argument before the BIA, and we lack jurisdiction to review it. See

§ 1252(d)(1); Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 318-19 (5th Cir. 2009).

The petition for review is DENIED.

 Case: 16-60660 Document: 00514201608 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/19/2017
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Growth of Legal-Aid Work in the United States: A Study of Our Administration of Justice Primarily as It Affects the Wage Earner and of the Agencies Designed to Improve His Position before the Law

              																	Bradway, John S., 1890-1985					 and 	Smith, Reginald Heber, 1889-1966. 						*Growth of Legal-Aid Work in the United States: A Study of Our Administration of Justice Primarily as It Affects the Wage Earner and of the Agencies Designed to Improve His Position before the Law : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 607*,												Washington, D.C: 								U.S. G.P.O., 										November 1935,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4129,			accessed on September 19, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
§ 243.4 Who can own or possess Alaskan reindeer? ( a ) Only Alaska Natives, organizations of Alaska Natives, or the United States for the benefit of these Natives, can own Alaskan reindeer in Alaska. ( 1 ) Any transfer not allowed by this part is not legal, and does not confer ownership or the right to keep Alaskan reindeer, reindeer products, or any interest in them.
( 2 ) Anyone violating this part will forfeit their reindeer or reindeer products to the Federal Government.
( b ) An Alaska Native or a Native reindeer organization may transfer reindeer that they own to other Alaska Natives or Native reindeer organizations without restriction, except as provided in this part.
( c ) We may maintain reindeer for research projects, so long as the purpose of the research benefits the Native reindeer industry. We retain title to these reindeer and will determine their eventual disposition.
( d ) A non-Native manager of Alaskan reindeer must, by the last day of September each year: ( 1 ) Provide us a copy of the contract with the Native reindeer owner; and
( 2 ) Provide us a written report of all Alaskan reindeer kept, born, died or transferred.
( e ) We may permit possession of a limited number of Alaskan reindeer by a non-Native applicant under a Special Use Permit for Public Display. ( 1 ) We can revoke this permit for cause.
( 2 ) The permit will not allow the permit-holder to keep a breeding herd (*i.e.*, a herd that is capable of reproduction).
( 3 ) The permit-holder must report to us in writing by the last day of September each year on all reindeer held under this permit.
§ 273.179 Are there contract audit and inspection requirements? ( a ) During the term of a contract and for three (3) years after the project or undertaking is completed, the BIE Director, or any duly authorized representative, must have access, for audit and examination purposes, to any of the contractor's books, documents, papers, and records that, in the BIE Director's or representative's opinion, may be related or pertinent to the contract or any subcontract.
( b ) The contractor is responsible for maintaining invoices, purchase orders, canceled checks, balance sheets and all other documents relating to financial transactions in a manner that will facilitate auditing. The contractor is responsible for maintaining files of correspondence and other documents relating to the administration of the contract, properly separated from general records or cross-referenced to general files.
( c ) The contractor receiving funds is responsible for contract compliance.
( d ) The records involved in any claim or expenditure that has been questioned must be further maintained until a final determination is made on the questioned expenditures.
( e ) The contractor and local school officials must make available to each member of the Indian Education Committee and to members of the public upon request: all contracts, non-confidential records concerning students served by the program, reports, budgets, budget estimates, plans, and other documents pertaining to administration of the contract program in the preceding and current years. The contractor or local school official must provide, free of charge, single copies of such documents upon request.
# C_2014014EN.01001201.xml

| 18.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 14/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 14/12

---

Commission notice pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community

Imposition of public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services

(Text with EEA relevance)

2014/C 14/11

| Member State | France |
| --- | --- |
| Route concerned | Dijon–Bordeaux (Mérignac) |
| Date of entry into force of the public service obligations | 1 June 2014 |
| Address from which the text and any relevant information and/or documentation relating to the public service obligation can be obtained | Decree of 3 December 2013 imposing public service obligations on scheduled air services between Dijon and Bordeaux
  NOR: DEVA1329594A
  http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/initRechTexte.do
  For further information please contact:





  Direction générale de l’aviation civile |
| DTA/SDT/T2 |
| 50 rue Henry Farman |
| 75720 Paris Cedex 15 |
| FRANCE |
| Tel. +33 158094321 |
| E-mail: osp-compagnies.dta@aviation-civile.gouv.fr |

Member State

France

Route concerned

Dijon–Bordeaux (Mérignac)

Date of entry into force of the public service obligations

1 June 2014

Address from which the text and any relevant information and/or documentation relating to the public service obligation can be obtained

Decree of 3 December 2013 imposing public service obligations on scheduled air services between Dijon and Bordeaux

NOR: DEVA1329594A

http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/initRechTexte.do

For further information please contact:

Direction générale de l’aviation civile

DTA/SDT/T2

50 rue Henry Farman

75720 Paris Cedex 15

FRANCE

Tel. +33 158094321

E-mail: osp-compagnies.dta@aviation-civile.gouv.fr

---
#### State of Nebraska, appellee, v. George N. Lewis, appellant.

236 N. W. 2d 831

Filed December 24, 1975.

Nos. 40105, 40106.

Frank B. Morrison and Stanley A. Krieger, for appellant.

Paul L. Douglas, Attorney General, and Harold Mosher, for appellee.

Heard before White, C. J., Spencer, Boslaugh, McCown, Newton, Clinton, and Brodkey, JJ.

Boslaugh, J.

In case No. 40106 the defendant was convicted of burglary and sentenced to imprisonment for 3 to 5 years. In case No. 40105 the defendant pleaded guilty to assault with intent to rob and was sentenced to imprisonment for 2 to 9 years, the sentence to be consecutive to the sentence in case No. 40106. Upon the motion of the public defender the cases were consolidated in this court for the purpose of briefing and argument. The sole issue presented here is whether the sentences imposed were excessive.

The burglary took place on September 25, 1974, and involved a residence property. The house was ransacked *81and money, a pistol, a tape player, and a camera were stolen. The defendant was identified by his fingerprints which were found on a purse that had been emptied. In a statement to the police, the defendant admitted he was present during the burglary but claimed a companion broke into the property and took the articles which were stolen. The defendant was convicted of burglary after a trial to a jury.

The assault with intent to rob took place on November 20, 1974. The defendant and several companions entered a Kwik Shop. One of the group was armed with a pistol that was in fact a starter’s pistol. The weapon was displayed and a demand for money was made. When the cash register was opened the group left without taking any money. They were apprehended almost immediately because the police had the store under surveillance.

The defendant is 17 years of age and single. He has a ninth grade education. He has a lengthy juvenile record dating from 1968. The trial court properly refused to remand the defendant to juvenile court. Past offenses include larceny, larceny from a person, and four other burglary charges. It is apparent from this record that the sentences imposed were not excessive and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in making the sentences run consecutively.

The judgments are affirmed.

Affirmed.
### §8246. Subsistence in hospital messes: hospital ration

(a) Enlisted members of the naval service on duty in hospitals and enlisted members of the naval service, including retired members and members of the Fleet Reserve and the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve, when sick in hospitals, may be subsisted in hospital messes. When subsistence is furnished under this subsection, the appropriation chargeable with the maintenance of the hospital mess shall be credited at the rate prescribed by the Secretary of the Navy as the value of the hospital ration.

(b) Under such regulations as the Secretary prescribes, officers in the Nurse Corps may be subsisted in hospital messes. Each officer so subsisted shall pay for her subsistence at the rate fixed by the regulations.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 380, §6086; renumbered §8246, Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, §807(b)(8), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1835.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 6086 | 34 U.S.C. 901a (less 1st and 2d sentences). | Aug. 2, 1946, ch. 756, §17(a) (less 1st and 2d sentences), 60 Stat. 855. |
| | 34 U.S.C. 43h(a) (1st 21 words of 2d proviso). | Apr. 16, 1947, ch. 38, §208(a) (1st 25 words of 2d proviso), 61 Stat. 50. |

In subsection (a) the words "active duty" before the words "enlisted personnel" are omitted as surplusage since there is no authority to hospitalize an enlisted member in a naval hospital under conditions where he would not be entitled to a hospital ration. The words "active and inactive" before the words "retired enlisted personnel" are omitted as surplusage. The word "members" is substituted for the word "personnel" for uniformity. The words "the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve" are inserted for clarity since the term "Fleet Reserve" in the source statute is used in a generic sense and includes members of the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve.

In subsection (b) the words "that nothing contained in this section shall deprive such nurses of allowances for subsistence now or after August 2, 1946, provided by law" are omitted as surplusage. Section 301 of the Career Compensation Act of 1949 (37 U.S.C. 251) authorizes a basic allowance for subsistence for all officers entitled to basic pay.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–232 renumbered section 6086 of this title as this section.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 2018 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 115–232 effective Feb. 1, 2019, with provision for the coordination of amendments and special rule for certain redesignations, see section 800 of Pub. L. 115–232, set out as a note preceding section 3001 of this title.
### [§2373. Renumbered §4023]
§ 162.573 How will BIA decide whether to approve an amendment to a WSR lease? ( a ) We may disapprove a WSR lease amendment only if at least one of the following is true: ( 1 ) The Indian landowners have not consented and their consent is required;
( 2 ) The lessee's mortgagees or sureties have not consented;
( 3 ) The lessee is in violation of the lease;
( 4 ) The requirements of this subpart have not been met; or
( 5 ) We find a compelling reason to withhold our approval in order to protect the best interests of the Indian landowners.
( b ) We will defer, to the maximum extent possible, to the Indian landowners' determination that the amendment is in their best interest.
( c ) We may not unreasonably withhold approval of an amendment.
§ 39.205 How does OIEP calculate a school's total WSUs for the school year? ( a ) OIEP will add the weights obtained from the calculations in paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3) of this section to obtain the total weighted student units (WSUs) for each school. ( 1 ) Each year's ADM is multiplied by the applicable weighted student unit for each grade level;
( 2 ) Calculate any supplemental WSUs generated by the students; and
( 3 ) Calculate any supplemental WSUs generated by the schools.
( b ) The total WSU for the school year is the sum of paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3) of this section.
**Exhibit 99.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

          In connection with the Quarterly Report of River Holding Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Periodic Report”), I, Patrick G. Yount, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to my knowledge, that:

|   | 3.     | The Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and                                     |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                          |
|   | 4.     | The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |

 

|   | /s/ PATRICK YOUNT                                                       |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                         |
|   | **Patrick G. Yount Chief Financial Officer and Secretary May 13, 2003** |
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 259 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                         June 19, 2000.
Whereas for over 100 years, the Olympic movement has built a more peaceful and 
        better world by educating young people through amateur athletics, by 
        bringing together athletes from many countries in friendly competition, 
        and by forging new relationships bound by friendship, solidarity, and 
        fair play;
Whereas the United States Olympic Committee is dedicated to coordinating and 
        developing amateur athletic activity in the United States to foster 
        productive working relationships among sports-related organizations;
Whereas the United States Olympic Committee promotes and supports amateur 
        athletic activities involving the United States and foreign nations;
Whereas the United States Olympic Committee promotes and encourages physical 
        fitness and public participation in amateur athletic activities;
Whereas the United States Olympic Committee assists organizations and persons 
        concerned with sports in the development of athletic programs for 
        amateur athletes;
Whereas the United States Olympic Committee protects the opportunity of each 
        amateur athlete, coach, trainer, manager, administrator, and official to 
        participate in amateur athletic competition;
Whereas athletes representing the United States at the Olympic games have 
        achieved great success personally and for the Nation;
Whereas thousands of men and women of the United States are focusing their 
        energy and skill on becoming part of the United States Olympic team and 
        aspire to compete in the 2000 summer Olympic games in Sydney, Australia, 
        and the 2002 winter Olympic games in Salt Lake City, Utah;
Whereas the Nation takes great pride in the qualities of commitment to 
        excellence, grace under pressure, and good will toward other competitors 
        exhibited by the athletes of the United States Olympic team; and
Whereas June 23 is the anniversary of the founding of the modern Olympic 
        movement, representing the date on which the Congress of Paris approved 
        the proposal of Pierre de Coubertin to found the modern Olympics: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the goals and ideals of the Olympics;
            (2) calls upon the President to issue a proclamation recognizing the 
        anniversary of the founding of the modern Olympic movement; and
            (3) calls upon the people of the United States to observe such 
        anniversary with appropriate ceremonies and activities.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### § 1000.130 Does a Tribe/Consortium need to be identified in an authorizing statute in order for a program or element of a program to be included in a non-BIA AFA?

No, the Act favors the inclusion of a wide range of programs.
# C_2006224EN.01003302.xml

| 16.9.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 224/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 224/33

---

Order of the President of the Court of 31 May 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Estonia

(Case C-351/05) (1)

1

(2006/C 224/68)

Language of the case: Estonian

Language of the case: Estonian

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 281, 12.11.2005.

1

---
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Employers & Practitioners 
-  Mortality, Retirement and PV Max Guarantee 
-  ERISA Section 4044 Retirement Assumptions 
-  Retirement Rate Category Tables 2013 

This page has not been translated. Please go to PBGC.gov's Spanish home page for more information available in Spanish.

Esta página no ha sido traducida. Por favor vaya a la página principal del sitio de español de PBGC para ver información disponible en español.

# Retirement Rate Category Tables 2013

The rate tables applicable for other years are accessible from the main XRA webpage.

January 13, 2022
# C_2006237EN.01000803.xml

| 30.9.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/8

---

Action brought on 21 July 2006 — Rathscheck Schiefer und Dach-Systeme and Others v Commission

(Case T-198/06)

(2006/C 237/16)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Rathscheck Schiefer und Dach-Systeme KG (Mayen, Germany), Nikolaus Theis Nachf. Böger GmbH (Bundenbach, Germany) and I.B. Rathscheck Söhne KG Moselschiefer-Bergwerke (Mayen, Germany) (represented by: T. Risse, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Declare invalid Article 1 of the Commission Decision of 8 March 2006 on Germany's State aid No C 31/2004 (ex NN 53/2004) to Magog Schiefergruben GmbH & Co. KG.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants contest Article 1 of Commission Decision C (2006) 641 final of 8 March 2006, by which the Commission decided that the State aid awarded by Germany to Schiefergruben Magog GmbH & Co. KG, a competitor of the applicants, is compatible in part with the common market in accordance with Article 87(3)(c) EC.

The applicants took part in the Commission's formal verification procedure.

In support of their claim, the applicants allege infringement of Commission Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises (OJ 2001 L 10, p. 33) in the version amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 364/2004 of 25 February 2004 (OJ 2004 L 63, p. 22).

In the applicants' view, there is eligibility for aid under Articles 5a and 5b of Regulation No 70/2001 only if the new production process, the implementation of which was assisted by the aid, is a precompetitive development. They submit that that is not the case in the present situation, since the prototype for which aid was granted is not innovative.

Furthermore, the applicants submit in support of their claim that there is here no eligibility for aid under Article 4 of Regulation No 70/2001. There is eligibility only where the production process receiving aid is significantly changed from the previous production process. That precondition is not met in this case since the working procedure in the production process has remained the same.

---