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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

OSCAR ALEXANDER CHACON, AKA

Oscar Chacon Ardon,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-72815

Agency No. A094-213-022

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 22, 2015** 

Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Oscar Alexander Chacon, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal

from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his motion to reconsider and reopen

removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review

FILED

APR 30 2015

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).
for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider, Mohammed v.

Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791(9th Cir. 2005), and we deny in part and dismiss in

part the petition for review. 

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Chacon’s motion to

reconsider, where he failed to show any error of law or fact in the IJ’s original

removal order, and has not established that his decision to waive appeal of that

order was not knowing and intelligent, where he was represented by counsel, is

bound by his counsel’s tactical decisions, and did not raise a claim of ineffective

assistance of counsel before the agency. See Magallanes-Damian v. INS, 783 F.2d

931, 934 (9th Cir. 1986), cf. Biwot v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir.

2005) (finding an invalid appeal waiver where a pro se petitioner did not

understand the meaning of an appeal). In addition, the agency did not abuse its

discretion in construing Chacon’s motion as a motion to reconsider. See 8 C.F.R. 

§ 1003.23(b)(2); Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 896 (9th Cir. 2003) (a motion

to reopen is usually based upon new evidence or a change in factual circumstance,

whereas a motion to reconsider is a request that the agency reexamine its decision

in light of additional legal arguments, a change of law, or an argument or aspect of

the case which was overlooked). 

2 09-72815
We lack jurisdiction to consider Chacon’s newly-raised claim of ineffective

assistance of counsel because it is unexhausted. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d

1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (the court lacks jurisdiction to consider legal claims not

presented in an alien’s administrative proceedings).

In light of this disposition, we do not reach Chacon’s remaining contentions

concerning his eligibility for relief from removal. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 

3 09-72815
#### Alicia AGUIRRE, by Alfredo Aguirre, Her Next Friend, Plaintiff, v. Michael J. NAGEL, Defendant.

Civ. No. *25622.*

United States District Court E. D. Michigan, S. D.

April 28, 1967.

Donnelly W. Hadden, Menendez & Hadden, Detroit, Mich., for plaintiff.

Forrest G. Shaw, Rouse, Selby, Webber, Dickinson & Shaw,- Detroit, Mich., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM

THORNTON, District Judge.

At the pretrial conference in this case the question of jurisdiction was raised and the Court suggested that the parties submit briefs in support of their respective positions.

The situation presented here strikes one at first blush as being somewhat unusual, but upon examination of relevant statute and case law it appears to be what we might term one-of-a-kind. The cause of action sounds in tort for personal injuries incurred by the minor plaintiff when she was struck by defendant’s motor vehicle. The defendant here is a citizen of the State of Michigan. The minor plaintiff is a citizen of the United States and of the State of Michigan, having been born and raised in Michigan. It is, therefore, clear that 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332(a) (1) does not confer jurisdiction on this Court since it reads as follows:

> “(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between—

> (1) citizens of different States;”

This, however, does not end the matter. The pleadings and depositions on file show that the minor plaintiff is also a citizen of Mexico, her mother and father each being a Mexican citizen. We must, therefore, consider U.S.C.A. § 1332(a) (2) which confers jurisdiction on United States district courts where the controversy exceeds $10,000 and is between:

> “(2) citizens of a State, and foreign states or citizens or subjects thereof;”

It is the position of defendant that since both plaintiff and defendant are Michigan citizens diversity is destroyed and that this Court is, therefore, without jurisdiction to entertain the action. We agree with this position insofar as it relates to subsection (1) of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332(a). Plaintiff is not a citizen of a State different from that of defendant.

It is the position of plaintiff that defendant is a citizen of a State and that she is a citizen of a foreign state and *536that she brings her action under subsection (2) of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332(a).

We are forced to agree with plaintiff that diversity jurisdiction exists within the exact language of subsection (2). No case has been called to our attention, nor has our research disclosed any, where this issue has been decided. Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332 spells out affirmatively the possible bases for diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s situation falls squarely within one of these bases. We do not deem it good law to deny the existence of jurisdiction under subsection (2) on the grounds of the non-existence of jurisdiction under subsection (1). This memorandum is being made for the purpose of setting forth the jurisdictional basis on which the Court entertains this cause of action.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 17

- 00524

- CR

Lloyd Ray MCKINNEY

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 2, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. CCL

- 16

- 1094

Honorable Frank Follis, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE ANGELINI , AND JUSTICE RIOS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED June 13, 2018.

_____________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice
#### § 345.66 Claims limitation.

Claims relating to pay and/or benefits must occur within one calendar year of the period of time for which the claim is made. Inmate claims submitted more than one year after the time in question require the approval of the Assistant Director before an inmate may receive such pay and/or benefit.
§ 1315.605 Inspector General report. ( a ) The Inspector General, or other official as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, of each agency shall prepare and submit to Congress each year, commencing with submission of the President's Budget in 1991, an evaluation of the compliance of that agency with, and the effectiveness of, the requirements herein. The evaluation may include any recommended changes that may be necessary to strengthen or improve the requirements.
( b ) In the case of an agency that does not have an Inspector General, the agency official comparable to an Inspector General shall prepare and submit the annual report, or, if there is no such comparable official, the head of the agency shall prepare and submit the annual report.
( c ) The annual report shall be submitted at the same time the agency submits its annual budget justifications to Congress.
( d ) The annual report shall include the following: All alleged violations relating to the agency's covered Federal actions during the year covered by the report, the actions taken by the head of the agency in the year covered by the report with respect to those alleged violations and alleged violations in previous years, and the amounts of civil penalties imposed by the agency in the year covered by the report.
46°

86° 84°

80°

a

e'5 Location and value of Ordovician CAlmax sample (this
report)—al, allochthonous strata; au, autochthonous strata

° Location of Ordovician CAlmax sample—Data from Harris and

others (1978)

The senior author has assigned a CAI value of 1.5 to 2.0 for the
Trenton Limestone in this well

The CAI value of 3.0 is from the Beekmantown Dolomite about
1,500 to 2,000 ft below the Trenton Limestone in this well
(No. 8610T James)

The senior author has assigned a CAI value of 3.5 to 4.0 for the
Trenton Limestone at this outcrop location

Ordovician CAlmax isograd (this report)—Dashed where inferred;
hachured to indicate isograd depression

Ordovician CAlmax isograd—Data from Harris and others (1978)
x Upper Ordovician oil-stained dolomite locality in Kentucky

Oil and gas fields of the Bass Islands Dolomite equivalent

(Upper Silurian)—Data from New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (1986) and Van Tyne (1996)

Gas fields of the Bass Islands Dolomite equivalent (Upper
Silurian)}—Data from Van Tyne (1996)

Oil and gas fields of the Lockport Dolomite (including the
“Newburg zone”in Ohio) (Upper Silurian)—Data from Santini
and Coogan (1983), New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (1986), and Wickstrom and others (1996)

:
on

Lo

15° 415)
fos §

a

ROT T

7
EXPLANATION
~

yy Oilfields of the Clinton sandstone (Lower Silurian)—Data from

Ryder and Zagorski (2003)
N
Oil associated\with gas fields of the Clinton-Medina Sandstone
(Lower Silurian)—Data from R.T. Ryder (unpublished)
Gas fields of the Clinton-Medina Sandstone (Lower Silurian) —
Data from McCormac and others (1996) and Ryder and Zagorski
(2003) \
ia Gas fields of the Newburg sandstone (Upper Silurian)—Data
from Patchen (1 96)

Sy Oil fields of the “Corniferous” formations (Middle Devonian to
Lower Silurian)—Includes Salina Group, Lockport Dolomite, and
Keefer Sandstone. Data from Miles (1972) and Wilson and Sutton
(1976)

Dy Gas fields of the “Corniferous” formations (Middle Devonian to
Lower Silurian)—Indludes Salina Group, Lockport Dolomite, and
Keefer Sandstone. Data from Meglen and Noger (1996) and
Noger and others (1996)

ia Gas fields of the Tuscatora Sandstone (Lower Silurian)—Data
from Avary (1996) and Ryder and Zagorski (2003)
\

\

~~

Rocky Fork
S \ fet
° 3.5)
Ii Kanawhal

6 ~
DAS Bhingian Greek
. fiell
noes)

Lower Silurian
regional oil and)
gas accumulatio

25

50 75 100 MILES
J

ose

50

T
100 150 KILOMETERS

Figure 7.—Ordovician conodont color alteration index (CAI max) isograds superimposed on oil and gas fields in Silurian reservoirs.

L
80°

Ll
74°
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-11-00112-CV

In re Prakashanand Saraswati

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM HAYS COUNTY

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

Petitioner Prakashanand Saraswati has filed an agreed motion to dismiss his petition

for writ of mandamus as a result of settlement. We grant the motion and dismiss this proceeding. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 52.8.

__________________________________________

Melissa Goodwin, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Henson and Goodwin

Dismissed on Agreed Motion

Filed: March 16, 2011
T

14N

R07W

T14N

R08W

T14N

R09W

T14N

R10W

T15N

R07W

T15N

R08W

T15N

T15N

R09W

R10W

MT200

M

T

2

0

0

Lincoln

607-D2

Road 7

4

1

0

6-

0

02

4043-G2

4106-L1

U-432

607-C2

U-442 PVT1227

Road 8

1

83

7-

B

5

PVT-1228

1824-G1

U-112

1824

U-430

1837-B4

Road 5

1824-B2

U-115

U-436

U-433

607-F1

4106-001 607-C1

626-D1

4106-K1

U-113

1800

1824-A1

4043-B1

1804-A

1

1824-H1

626-C2

1804

607-G1

U-434

1824-E1

4106-D1

1824-I1

460

1-B

1

1

8

3

7-A

1

1837-B2

607 U-431

U-117

1824-F1

626-A1

1800-C1

4

1

0

6

-

0

0

2

4043-F1 4043-E1

607-E1

607-D1

1

8

3

7-

B

3

4043-G1

626-B1

4043-C1 4043

4106

4106-C1

4106-A1

607-F2

4043-D1

1824-B1

607-A1

607-H1

1804-B1

1824-

C1

1837

626

1837-B1

1824-D1

59

61a

63

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

74

1

3

4

5

6

7

89

10

11

12

15

19a

23

22a

24

27

29a

31a

30a

34

36

37

38

40

41

50

52

57

51

84

85

80a

87

16

17a

25

32a

53

44a

45a

58

13

28

73

78

14

46b

82

79

35

2

83

88

62

39

42

43

20a

75b

46a

47b4

7a

48

47c

Legend

StonewallProjectBoundary

HelenaNFBoundary

OtherOwnership

INFISHBuffer

InventoriedRoadlessAreas(IRAs)

StonewallAlt3Treatments

DescriptionGroups

1234567891

0Bro

adcastBurn

JackpotBurn

SitePrepBurn

Underburn

PrescribedFire

NoTreatment

Handpiling,BurnPiles

UnderburnorSlashTreatmentalongPVT

Slashing,Handpiling,BurnPiles

JackpotBurn,Handpiling,BurnPiles

Construct/Obliterate

NotHaulRoute

Reconstruction

012

Miles

StonewallVegetationProjectArea

Alternative3

.

Disclaimer:

TheForestServiceusesthemostcurrentandcompletedataavailable.GISdataandproductaccuracymayvary.

Theymaybe:developedfromsourcesofdifferingaccuracy,accurateonlyatcertainscales,basedonmodelingor

interpretation,incompletewhilebeingcreatedorrevised,etc.UsingGISproductsforpurposesotherthanthose

forwhichtheywerecreatedmayyieldinaccurateormisleadingresults.TheForestServicereservestherightto

correct,update,modifyorreplaceGISproductswithoutnotification.Formoreinformationcontact:

HelenaNationalForest

2880SkywayDrive

Helena,Montana59602

406-449-5201

lcb042513

LincolnGulchIRA

Bear-Marshall-Scapegoat-SwanIRA
### §1456c. Technical assistance

(a) The Secretary shall conduct a program of technical assistance and management-oriented research necessary to support the development and implementation of State coastal management program amendments under section 1456b of this title, and appropriate to the furtherance of international cooperative efforts and technical assistance in coastal zone management. Each department, agency, and instrumentality of the executive branch of the Federal Government may assist the Secretary, on a reimbursable basis or otherwise, in carrying out the purposes of this section, including the furnishing of information to the extent permitted by law, the transfer of personnel with their consent and without prejudice to their position and rating, and the performance of any research, study, and technical assistance which does not interfere with the performance of the primary duties of such department, agency, or instrumentality. The Secretary may enter into contracts or other arrangements with any qualified person for the purposes of carrying out this subsection.

(b)(1) The Secretary shall provide for the coordination of technical assistance, studies, and research activities under this section with any other such activities that are conducted by or subject to the authority of the Secretary.

(2) The Secretary shall make the results of research and studies conducted pursuant to this section available to coastal states in the form of technical assistance publications, workshops, or other means appropriate.

(3) The Secretary shall consult with coastal states on a regular basis regarding the development and implementation of the program established by this section.

(Pub. L. 89–454, title III, §310, as added Pub. L. 101–508, title VI, §6211, Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1388–311.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 1456c, Pub. L. 89–454, title III, §310, as added Pub. L. 94–370, §9, July 26, 1976, 90 Stat. 1029, related to research and technical assistance for coastal zone management, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 99–272, title VI, §6045(1), Apr. 7, 1986, 100 Stat. 127.
# C_2013026EN.01001001.xml

| 26.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 December 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — BONIK (EOOD) v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

(Case C-285/11) (1)

1

(VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Right of deduction - Refusal)

2013/C 26/17

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Referring court

Administrativen sad — Varna

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BONIK (EOOD)

Applicant:

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad — Varna — Interpretation of Articles 14, 62, 63, 167, 168 and 178(a) and (b) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Formalities laid down by Member States in relation to the right to deduct VAT — Measures taken to prevent certain forms of tax evasion or avoidance — Refusal of the right to deduct VAT in the case of a taxable person in receipt of intra-Community supplies, on the ground that there was no evidence that supplies of goods had actually been carried out as between the preceding suppliers, despite the existence of evidence establishing that supplies of goods had been carried out by the last supplier direct to the taxable person

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 2, 9, 14, 62, 63, 167, 168 and 178 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those of the case before the referring court, a taxable person may not be refused the right to deduct VAT in relation to a supply of goods on the ground that, in view of fraud or irregularities committed upstream or downstream of that supply, the supply is considered not to have actually taken place, where it has not been established on the basis of objective evidence that the taxable person knew, or should have known, that the transaction relied on as a basis for the right of deduction was connected with VAT fraud committed upstream or downstream in the chain of supply — a matter which it is for the referring court to determine.

---

(1)  OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.

1

---
CS 316439-Q 04/30/2020

COVID-19 सम्बन्धीतथ्यहरूसाझागर्नुहोस् कोरोना भाइरस (COVID-19) बारेतथ्यहरू थाहापाउनुहोस्र हल्लाहरूलाईफै लनबाट

रोक्न मद्दत गर्नुहोस्।

तथ्य

1

क्वारेन्टाइनपूरागरेका

वाआइसोलेसनबाट

छु टेका कोहीव्यक्तिले

अन्यमानिसहरूलाई

सं क्रमणकोजोखिम

निम्त्याउँ दैन।

तथ्य

5

तपाईं निम्न समावेश हुन सक्नेसं के त

र लक्षणहरू थाहापाएर COVID-19 

रोक्नमामद्दतगर्नसक्नुहुन्छ।

तथ्य

4

तपाईंलेआफूर अन्य

मानिसहरूलाईस्वस्थ राख्नमामद्दत

गर्नसक्नेके ही सरल कु राहरू छन्।

तथ्य

2

रोगहरूलेमानिसहरूको

जातिवाजातियतालाई

ध्याननदिई कसैलाईपनि

बिरामी बनाउन सक्छन्।

• ज्वरोआउने

• खोकी लाग्ने

• श्वास फेर्नमा समस्या हुने

तपाईं र तपाईंलेमाया गर्नेकसैलाई निम्न सहितका

आपतकालीन चेतावनी सं के तहरू देखिएमा तुरून्तै

चिकित्सा सावधानी खोज्नुहोस्: 

• श्वासप्रश्वासमा कठिनाइ हुने

• छातीमा निरन्तर दुखाइ वा चाप हुने

• नयाँ भ्रम हुनेवा उठ्न नसक्ने

• ओठ वा अनुहार निलो हुने

यो सूचीमा सबैसमाविष्ट छैन। कृ पया अन्य कु नैपनि लक्षण गम्भीर

भएमा वा सम्बन्धित कु राको लागिआफ्नो चिकित्सा प्रदायकको

परामर्शलिनुहोस्।

नवीनतम जानकारीका लागि, CDC को

कोरोना भाइरस रोग 2019 को वेब पृष्ठमा

जानुहोस्।

धेरैजसोमानिसहरूका

लागि, COVID-19 लाग्ने

भाइरसबाटगम्भीररूपमा

बिमारी हुनेतत्कालै

जोखिमलाई कमहुने

मानिन्छ।

COVID-19 बारेडर र चिन्ताले

मानिसहरूलाई भाइरस फै लाउने

जोखिममा नभए तापनि अन्य

व्यक्तिहरूबाट टाढा रहनेवा अस्वीकार

गर्नेबनाउन सक्छ।

गम्भीरआधारभूत चिकित्सा अवस्थाहरू

भएका वृद्ध मानिस र कु नैपनि उमेरका

मानिसहरू COVID-19 बाट हुनेथप गम्भीर

जटिलताहरूको उच्च जोखिममा हुन

सक्छन्।

• विशेषगरीआफ्नो नाक पुछिसके पछि, खोके पछि वा

हाच्छिउँ गरेपछि; बाथरूम गएपछि र खाना खानुअघि

वा खाना बनाउनुअघिआफ्ना हातहरूलाई कम्तीमा 20 

सेके ण्डसम्म पटक-पटक साबुन र पानीलेधुनुहोस्।

• सार्वजनिक स्थानमा हुँदा, तपाईंको मुख र नाक ढाक्ने

अनुहारलाई ढाक्नेकपडा लगाउनुहोस्।

• नधोएका हातहरूलेआफ्नाआँ खाहरू, नाक र मुख

नछु नुहोस्।

• तपाईं बिरामी भएको समयमा घरमा बस्नुहोस्।

• खोकी वा हाच्छिउँ लाई टिस्युलेछोप्नुहोस्, त्यसपछि

टिस्युलाई फोहोर फाल्नेभाँडोमा फाल्नुहोस्।

तथ्य

3

cdc.gov/coronavirus
#### § 16.28 Procedure in the event of an adverse ruling.

If the court or other authority declines to stay the effect of the demand in response to a request made in accordance with § 16.27 of this chapter pending receipt of instructions, or if the court or other authority rules that the demand must be complied with irrespective of instructions rendered in accordance with §§ 16.24 and 16.25 of this part not to produce the material or disclose the information sought, the employee or former employee upon whom the demand has been made shall, if so directed by the responsible Department official, respectfully decline to comply with the demand. *See* United States ex rel. Touhy v. Ragen, 340 U.S. 462 (1951).
#### Davis Yarn Co., Inc., et al., v. Brooklyn Yarn Dye Co., Inc., et al., and Sentinel Fire Insurance Company et al.

Present — Martin, P. J., Untermyer, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.
### §2103. Repealed. Pub. L. 113–79, title VIII, §8001(a), Feb. 7, 2014, 128 Stat. 913

Section, Pub. L. 95–313, §4, as added Pub. L. 107–171, title VIII, §8002(b), May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 468, related to the establishment and implementation of a forest land enhancement program.

A prior section 2103, Pub. L. 95–313, §4, July 1, 1978, 92 Stat. 367; Pub. L. 101–624, title XII, §§1214, 1224(1), Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 3525, 3542; Pub. L. 104–127, title III, §§336(a)(2)(B), 373, Apr. 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 1005, 1015, related to forestry incentives program, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 107–171, title VIII, §8001(a), May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 468.

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

#### Purposes of Forest Land Enhancement Program

Pub. L. 107–171, title VIII, §8002(a), May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 468, which listed purposes for the establishment of a forest land enhancement program, was repealed by Pub. L. 113–79, title VIII, §8001(b), Feb. 7, 2014, 128 Stat. 913.
#### Victoria GANSINGER and Grant Gansinger, Plaintiffs, v. HOLIDAY INNS, INC., Franklin Property Company, MHC Airport Inn, Inc., and B.F. Saul Real Estate Investment Trust, Defendants.

No. 98-CV-6119 CJS.

United States District Court, W.D. New York.

May 12, 1998.

*227Richard Weisbeek, Jr., Buffalo, NY, for Plaintiffs.

Karl Salzer, Trevett, Lenweaver & Van-Strydonek, P.C., Rochester, NY, for Defendants.

DECISION AND ORDER

SIRAGUSA, District Judge.

BACKGROUND

The plaintiffs commenced this action in New York State Supreme Court, Monroe County, on January 29, 1998. The defendants were served with a summons and complaint on or about February 20, 1998. On March 20, 1998, the defendants filed a notice of removal to this Court, which notice of removal failed to provide the necessary factual basis for this Court to determine whether or not it has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. By a Decision and Order dated April 14, 1998, the defendants were directed to file and serve an amended notice of removal setting forth the states of incorporation and the principal places of business for Holiday Inns, Inc. and Franklin Property Company, as well as the citizenship of the trustee(s) of the B.F. Saul Real Estate Investment Trust, on or before May 4, 1998. This Decision and Order further stated that failure to provide this information by May 4, 1998 would result in this action being remanded to State Supreme Court. To date, the defendants have not submitted the requested information.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, this matter is remanded to New York State Supreme Court, Monroe County, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The Clerk is directed to mail a certified copy of this Decision and Order to the Clerk of that Court. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), this Order is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise.

So ordered.