alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Joseph Louis PRUSICK, Petitioner—Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent— Appellee.

No. 05-73796.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 13, 2006.*

Decided Feb. 22, 2006.

Joseph Louis Prusick, Casa Grande, AZ, pro se.

Donald L. Korb, Acting Chief Counsel Internal Revenue Service, Eileen J. O’Con-nor, Esq., Mary R. Pelletier, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Tax Division, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

*777MEMORANDUM**

Joseph Louis Prusick appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in his action contesting deficiencies for tax years 1999 and 2000. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7482. We review de novo, *see Talley Indus., Inc. v. Comm’r,*116 F.3d 382, 385 (9th Cir. 1997), and we affirm.

The Tax Court properly upheld the underlying tax liability assessed in the notice of determination because Prusick did not challenge it in his petition, and even after the Tax Court ordered him to file a supplement to his petition specifically stating any challenge to the underlying deficiency, he failed to do so. *See*Tax Ct. R. 34(b)(4); *Bob Wondries Motors, Inc. v. Comm’r,*268 F.3d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 2001).

Although 26 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1) permits recording of an in-person collection due process (“CDP”) hearing, we reject Prusick’s contention that he is entitled to a hearing so that he may record it. Prusick twice cancelled scheduled in-person CDP hearings, and then failed to call the appeals officer at the appointed time for his third scheduled CDP hearing, a telephone conference. *See*26 U.S.C. § 6330 (describing procedures for CDP hearing).

AFFIRMED

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
August 2023

Day

Shasta 

Inflow

C.F.S.

1

Prev Day

F.C. Par

(Col. 3)

X .95

2

F.C

Param

(Cols. 1+2)

3

.0356*

X Days

12/23 Thru

3/20

4

530,000

Minus

F.C.

Param

(Col 3)

5

Cols

4x5

6

F.C.

Reserv

(1,300,000 - 

Col 6)

7

Minus 

14,943

Per Day

After

3/20

8

Adjusted

F.C.

Reserv

(7-8)

Perm

Storage

84,232

1 3,067 80,020 83,087 1,300,000 5,831,000

2 2,698 78,933 81,631 1,300,000 5,809,000

3 2,656 77,549 80,205 1,300,000 5,788,000

4 3,990 76,195 80,185 1,300,000 5,767,000

5 4,918 76,176 81,094 1,300,000 5,745,000

6 3,164 77,039 80,203 1,300,000 5,724,000

7 3,335 76,193 79,528 1,300,000 5,703,000

8 1,315 75,551 76,866 1,300,000 5,682,000

9 2,859 73,023 75,882 1,300,000 5,660,000

10 3,908 72,088 75,996 1,300,000 5,639,000

11 3,912 72,196 76,108 1,300,000 5,618,000

12 3,780 72,303 76,083 1,300,000 5,596,000

13 3,010 72,279 75,289 1,300,000 5,575,000

14 3,467 71,524 74,991 1,300,000 5,554,000

15 2,379 71,242 73,621 1,300,000 5,532,000

16 3,858 69,940 73,798 1,300,000 5,511,000

17 3,296 70,108 73,404 1,300,000 5,490,000

18 2,874 69,734 72,608 1,300,000 5,468,000

19 3,544 68,977 72,521 1,300,000 5,447,000

20 2,963 68,895 71,858 1,300,000 5,426,000

21 3,859 68,265 72,124 1,300,000 5,404,000

22 2,832 68,518 71,350 1,300,000 5,383,000

23 4,186 67,783 71,969 1,300,000 5,362,000

24 4,298 68,370 72,668 1,300,000 5,341,000

25 3,624 69,035 72,659 1,300,000 5,319,000

26 3,042 69,026 72,068 1,300,000 5,298,000

27 3,108 68,464 71,572 1,300,000 5,277,000

28 1,772 67,994 69,766 1,300,000 5,255,000

29 2,631 66,278 68,909 1,300,000 5,234,000

30 4,433 65,463 69,896 1,300,000 5,213,000

31 3,186 66,401 69,587 1,300,000 5,191,000

Comments: 

* LEAP YEAR CONSTANT = .0352 

CONSTANT .0356 = 1,300,000 / (TOTAL DAYS X (530,000 - 110,000 ) ) 

IF COL 3 IS GREATER THAN 530,000 OR LESS THAN 110,000 USE THOSE VALUES FOR COL 3 INSTEAD OF THE COMPUTED VALUE

Historical Archive and Report Database

Lake Shasta Flood Control Requirements

Run Date: 9/10/2023
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 of AE Biofuels, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Eric A. McAfee, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; 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: November 30, 2010
By:
/s/ ERIC A. MCAFEEEric A. McAfeeChief Executive Officer
§ 679.240 What are the substantive requirements for designation of local areas that were not designated as local areas under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998? ( a ) Except as provided in § 679.250, the Governor may designate or redesignate a local area in accordance with policies and procedures developed by the Governor, which must include at a minimum consideration of the extent to which the proposed area: ( 1 ) Is consistent with local labor market areas;
( 2 ) Has a common economic development area; and
( 3 ) Has the Federal and non-Federal resources, including appropriate education and training institutions, to administer activities under WIOA subtitle B.
( b ) The Governor may approve a request at any time for designation as a workforce development area from any unit of general local government, including a combination of such units, if the State WDB determines that the area meets the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this section and recommends designation.
( c ) Regardless of whether a local area has been designated under this section or § 679.250, the Governor may redesignate a local area if the redesignation has been requested by a local area and the Governor approves the request.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY HIGH

 170

 173

 171

 169

 167

 166

 165

 166

 166

 164

 163

 163

 0

 166

 179

 183

 188

 173

 164

 0

 158

 159

 161

 167

 186

 166

 156

 174

 175

 174

 143

 138

 132

 134

 139

 141

 140

 139

 139

 136

 142

 144

 0

 149

 153

 142

 133

 134

 138

 0

 79

 137

 134

 138

 139

 140

 131

 128

 127

 126

 159

 160

 156

 158

 160

 160

 158

 156

 155

 151

 153

 157

 0

 159

 166

 163

 159

 153

 152

 0

 145

 151

 149

 153

 156

 154

 145

 147

 146

 146

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JUNE 2018 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: July 16, 2018

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

SAN ANDREAS ON THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 441 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 441

   To provide for a technical change to the Medicare long-term care 
                     hospital moratorium exception.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 21, 2015

 Mr. Boustany introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To provide for a technical change to the Medicare long-term care 
                     hospital moratorium exception.

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

SECTION 1. TECHNICAL CHANGE TO THE MEDICARE LONG-TERM CARE HOSPITAL 
              MORATORIUM EXCEPTION.

    (a) In General.--Section 114(d) of the Medicare, Medicaid, and 
SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 1395ww note), as amended by 
sections 3106(b) and 10312(b) of Public Law 111-148, section 1206(b)(2) 
of the Pathway for SGR Reform Act of 2013 (division B of Public Law 
113-67), and section 112 of the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 
2014, is amended, in paragraph (7), by striking ``The moratorium under 
paragraph (1)(A)'' and inserting ``Any moratorium under paragraph (1)'' 
in the matter preceding subparagraph (A).
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect as if included in the enactment of section 112 of the 
Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014.
                                 <all>
```
#### Henry F. Norcott and James M. McManus, Partners as H. F. Norcott & Co., Defendants in Error, v. Carrie L. Downe and George E. Downe, Plaintiffs in Error.

Gen. No. 17,282.

1. *Brokers*— sufficiency *of evidence in action for commission.*In an action by brokers for a commission alleged to have been earned upon a sale of tbe defendant’s property, evidence beld to sustain a finding for tbe plaintiffs.

2. Appeal and *error*— review *of conflicting evidence.*A determination by a trial court as to tbe credibility of witnesses on conflicting evidence is conclusive on appeal.

Error to tbe Municipal Court of Chicago; tbe Hon. Frederick L. Fake, Jr., Judge, presiding. Heard in tbe Branch Appellate Court at tbe March term, 1911.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed October 1, 1912.

Strong *&*Mecham and Warren B. Wilson, for plaintiffs in error.

John S. Hummer, for defendants in error.

Mr. Presiding Justice Clark

delivered the opinion of the court.

In this case recovery was had by the defendants in error against the plaintiffs in error for a commission claimed to have been earned by them in the sale of the residence property of the plaintiffs in error.

Only questions of fact are involved. It is the contention of the plaintiffs in error that the sale was one that they had made themselves before the defendants in error had anything to do with the matter, and that this was known to the defendants in error; that the defendants in error were promised a commission only upon the condition that they secured a better price than $17,500, and that the defendants in error were unfaithful in that they did not attempt to pro*181cure $22,500 for the property, as they were instructed. It is further charged that the defendants in error did not properly conduct the transaction with the proposed purchaser, in that they offered the property at a lower price than directed to do.

The case was tried before the court without a jury. We have carefully examined the abstract of record and briefs and arguments in the case, and are unable to say that the conclusion reached by the trial judge was erroneous. In some particulars the testimony seems to have been conflicting. The trial judge having before him the witnesses was in mnch better position to determine their credibility, respectively, or the lack of it than are we.

*Affirmed.*
#### § 725.507 Guardian for minor or incompetent.

An adjudication officer may require that a legal guardian or representative be appointed to receive benefit payments payable to any person who is mentally incompetent or a minor and to exercise the powers granted to, or to perform the duties otherwise required of such person under the Act.
### §§5113, 5114. Repealed. Pub. L. 103–149, §4(a)(2), Nov. 23, 1993, 107 Stat. 1505

Section 5113, Pub. L. 99–440, title VI, §603, Oct. 2, 1986, 100 Stat. 1114, related to enforcement of this chapter and penalties for noncompliance.

Section 5114, Pub. L. 99–440, title VI, §604, Oct. 2, 1986, 100 Stat. 1115, provided that this chapter applied to persons undertaking transactions or activities with intent to evade this chapter.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective June 8, 1994, date on which President certified to Congress that interim government, elected on nonracial basis through free and fair elections, had taken office in South Africa, see section 4(a)(2) of Pub. L. 103–149, set out in a Repeal of Chapter; South African Democratic Transition Support note under section 5001 of this title.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4560 

To assist survivors of stroke and other debilitating health occurrences in 

returning to work. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 12, 2016 

Mrs. BEATTY (for herself, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Ms. SEWELL of Alabama, Ms. WILSON of Florida, Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia, 

Mr. CLAY, Mr. RANGEL, Mr. LEWIS, Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois, 

Ms. BROWN of Florida, Ms. LEE, Mr. HASTINGS, Mr. CLEAVER, Mr. 

THOMPSON of Mississippi, Ms. ADAMS, Mr. MEEKS, Mr. BISHOP of Georgia, Mr. RICHMOND, Mr. AL GREEN of Texas, Ms. NORTON, Ms. FUDGE, 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN, Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia, Mr. VEASEY, and 

Ms. PLASKETT) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To assist survivors of stroke and other debilitating health 

occurrences in returning to work. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Return to Work 

5 Awareness Act of 2016’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4560 IH

1 SEC. 2. ASSISTING SURVIVORS OF STROKE AND OTHER DE2 BILITATING HEALTH OCCURRENCES IN RE3 TURNING TO WORK. 

4 The Secretary of Labor, acting through the Job Ac5 commodation Network, may disseminate information and 

6 promote awareness among survivors of stroke and other 

7 debilitating health occurrences, such as traumatic brain 

8 injury and heart attack, and the families of such survivors, 

9 as well as among private employers, government agencies, 

10 employee representatives, and service providers to— 

11 (1) assist survivors of stroke and such other de12 bilitating health occurrences in returning to work; 

13 (2) improve survivor’s employability and dem14 onstrate to employers the most effective ways to cap15 italize on the value and talent that these survivors 

16 add to the workplace; and 

17 (3) enhance self-employment and entrepreneur18 ship options for survivors. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              sep-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 apr-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   jun-30-1999

<CASH>                                         73,763
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  8,608,169
<ALLOWANCES>                                   887,299
<INVENTORY>                                    490,341
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               9,795,098
<PP&E>                                         4,721,376
<DEPRECIATION>                                 4,629,937
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 23,447,597
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          8,055,388
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       482,528
<OTHER-SE>                                     6,361,562
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   23,447,597
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               30,110,753
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  24,794,008
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1,536,143
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               1,275,229
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1,059,763
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,380,365
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1,380,365
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,380,365
<EPS-BASIC>                                  .17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .17



</TABLE>
§ 725.504 Payments to a claimant employed as a miner. ( a ) In the case of a claimant who is employed as a miner (see § 725.202) at the time of a final determination of such miner's eligibility for benefits, no benefits shall be payable unless: ( 1 ) The miner's eligibility is established under section 411(c)(3) of the Act; or
( 2 ) the miner terminates his or her coal mine employment within 1 year from the date of the final determination of the claim.
( b ) If the eligibility of a working miner is established under section 411(c)(3) of the Act, benefits shall be payable as is otherwise provided in this part. If eligibility cannot be established under section 411(c)(3), and the miner continues to be employed as a miner in any capacity for a period of less than 1 year after a final determination of the claim, benefits shall be payable beginning with the month during which the miner ends his or her coal mine employment. If the miner's employment continues for more than 1 year after a final determination of eligibility, such determination shall be considered a denial of benefits on the basis of the miner's continued employment, and the miner may seek benefits only as provided in § 725.310, if applicable, or by filing a new claim under this part. The provisions of Subparts E and F of this part shall be applicable to claims considered under this section as is appropriate.
( c ) In any case where the miner returns to coal mine or comparable and gainful work, the payments to such miner shall be suspended and no benefits shall be payable (except as provided in section 411(c)(3) of the Act) for the period during which the miner continues to work. If the miner again terminates employment, the district director may require the miner to submit to further medical examination before authorizing the payment of benefits.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY ELEV

 827.34

 827.04

 827.01

 827.00

 827.01

 827.00

 827.00

 826.99

 826.99

 826.98

 826.94

 826.91

 826.85

 826.83

 826.81

 826.76

 826.72

 826.69

 826.62

 826.59

 826.53

 826.48

 826.42

 826.39

 826.33

 826.30

 826.26

 826.21

 826.15

 826.09

 34.35

 34.03

 34.00

 33.99

 34.00

 33.99

 33.99

 33.98

 33.98

 33.97

 33.93

 33.90

 33.84

 33.82

 33.80

 33.74

 33.70

 33.67

 33.60

 33.57

 33.51

 33.45

 33.39

 33.36

 33.30

 33.27

 33.23

 33.18

 33.11

 33.05

STORAGE

-0.68

-0.32

-0.03

-0.01

+0.01

-0.01

+0.00

-0.01

+0.00

-0.01

-0.04

-0.03

-0.06

-0.02

-0.02

-0.05

-0.04

-0.03

-0.07

-0.03

-0.06

-0.05

-0.06

-0.03

-0.06

-0.03

-0.04

-0.05

-0.06

-0.06

CHANGE

1

4

40

32

45

35

38

32

37

31

20

27

13

34

28

16

19

19

2

22

5

16

10

24

9

22

18

17

13

5

INFLOW

 15

 15

 15

 15

 15

 15

 15

 15

 15

 15

 15

 15

 15

 15

 15

 15

 15

 15

 15

 15

 15

 20

 20

 20

 20

 20

 20

 25

 25

 25

SPILL

 319

 136

 30

 15

 15

 15

 15

 15

 15

 15

 15

 15

 15

 15

 15

 15

 15

 11

 11

 11

 11

 11

 11

 11

 11

 11

 11

 11

 11

 6

OUTLET

 11

 12

 11

 8

 9

 11

 8

 7

 7

 7

 11

 13

 14

 15

 8

 12

 10

 9

 12

 12

 10

 11

 10

 9

 9

 7

 8

 7

 8

 5

C.F.S.

 .32

 .36

 .34

 .25

 .27

 .34

 .23

 .20

 .22

 .20

 .32

 .38

 .41

 .45

 .25

 .36

 .30

 .27

 .36

 .35

 .30

 .32

 .30

 .28

 .28

 .22

 .24

 .22

 .24

 .15

INCHES

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

PRECIP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-ORLAND PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

SEPTEMBER 2003 RUN DATE: 03/11/2004

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

1000 ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS -1.95 634 833 510 291 8.73 .00

ACRE-FEET -1,950 1,258 1,652 1,012 577

COMMENTS:

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES AND EVAPORATION.

DATA BASED ON 24 HOUR PERIOD ENDING 0800 HOURS.

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

SPILL 1,012

OUTLET

TOTAL

 1,652

 2,664

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

TO DATE =

 .00

JULY 1, 2003 .68

 35.03

STONY GORGE RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS
#### LI HUI MA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-73523.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 13, 2006.*

Decided Feb. 23, 2006.

Allan A. Samson, Esq., San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Wayne D. Hettenbach, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

*846MEMORANDUM**

Li Hui Ma is a native and citizen of China. Ma petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision, which affirmed the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

Where, as here, the BIA adopts and affirms the IJ’s decision, we review the decision of the IJ as if it were that of the BIA. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003). We review for substantial evidence an adverse credibility determination, *Chebchoub v. INS,*257 F.3d 1038, 1042-43 (9th Cir.2001), and we deny this petition for review.

The IJ offered a specific, cogent reason for his credibility determination based on an inconsistency regarding the amount of the fine imposed on Ma for his family practice violation. Because this goes to the heart of Ma’s asylum claim, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. *See id.; see also Li v. Ashcroft,*378 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir. 2004) (this court is bound to accept the IJ’s adverse credibility finding so long as one of the IJ’s identified grounds is supported by substantial evidence and goes to the heart of the petitioner’s claim of persecution).

Because Ma did not establish that he is eligible for asylum, he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial of CAT relief because Ma did not establish that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if returned to China. *See Malhi v. INS,*336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir.2003).

Because Ma failed to show how the IJ’s alleged bias affected the case’s outcome, and thus failed to establish prejudice, his due process claim fails. *See Cano-Merida v. INS,*311 F.3d 960, 965 (9th Cir.2002).

Finally, Ma’s contention regarding the BIA’s affirmance without opinion is merit-less, because, contrary to his contention, the BIA specifically addressed his bias argument.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.