alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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

31

DAY HIGH

 126

 124

 122

 119

 118

 117

 119

 118

 117

 119

 119

 124

 127

 123

 121

 122

 123

 119

 115

 121

 124

 129

 128

 122

 121

 121

 124

 126

 122

 123

 123

 120

 116

 114

 110

 110

 109

 109

 108

 110

 109

 113

 115

 115

 116

 117

 116

 114

 114

 105

 104

 120

 123

 119

 117

 118

 117

 119

 120

 118

 117

 118

 122

 119

 118

 114

 113

 112

 113

 112

 114

 113

 116

 119

 120

 118

 119

 118

 117

 115

 110

 109

 121

 124

 123

 119

 119

 118

 122

 122

 120

 120

 120

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

JULY 2019 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: August 1, 2019

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

STATEN ISLAND ON THE SOUTH FORK MOKELUMNE RIVER
### SUBCHAPTER VIII—INDIANS IN OKLAHOMA: PROMOTION OF WELFARE
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

31

DAY HIGH

 187

 187

 221

 280

 273

 216

 230

 223

 238

 173

 221

 217

 260

 243

 210

 212

 215

 235

 204

 261

 215

 221

 216

 217

 239

 239

 238

 238

 258

 287

 289

 133

 154

 153

 154

 142

 157

 148

 148

 139

 133

 119

 136

 145

 179

 142

 134

 141

 143

 162

 159

 166

 162

 164

 163

 162

 167

 175

 176

 190

 204

 208

 165

 171

 172

 188

 189

 182

 183

 183

 175

 149

 163

 175

 188

 200

 170

 152

 160

 174

 174

 177

 189

 186

 181

 183

 185

 194

 194

 201

 217

 228

 237

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

DECEMBER 2014 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: January 6, 2015

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

STATEN ISLAND ON THE SOUTH FORK MOKELUMNE RIVER
Table 23
                                           U.S. Department of Interior - Bureau of Reclamation
                                                  Central Valley Operations Office
 
                                                  Madera Canal and Millerton Lake
 
Monthly Deliveries in AF                                   1999
 
 
     Water Users        Jan    Feb    Mar    Apr    May    Jun    Jul    Aug    Sep    Oct    Nov    Dec   Total
 
MADERA CANAL
 
Chowchilla WD           1736   9027  14374  13881  17981  10040  22354  23245  15805   9339      0      0  137782
Madera ID (215 water)      0      0   6255  12869  20827  25183  27973  19228  11179  11491      0      0  135005
Soquel                     0      0      0      0      0      0      0      0      0      0      0      0       0
 
 
        Total           1736   9027  20629  26750  38808  35223  50327  42473  26984  20830      0      0 272,787
 
 
MILLERTON LAKE
 
County of Madera           2      1      2      3      5      5      7      6      5      5      3      3      47
Fresno County # 18         6      4      6      8     17     17     22     19     15     16      9      8     147
Gravelly Ford WD           0      0      0      0    240   1119   1857      0      0    213      0      0    3429
 
        Total              8      5      8     11    262   1141   1886     25     20    234     12     11   3,623
 
 
*  Data supplied by Fresno Field Division, Contracts Administration Division
§ 669.540 Under what circumstances are the terms of the grantee's plan modified by the grantee or the Department? ( a ) Plans must be modified to reflect the funding level for the second year of the designation cycle. We will provide instructions for when to submit modifications for second year funding, which will generally be no later than June 1 prior to the beginning of the second year of the designation cycle.
( b ) We may unilaterally modify the grantee's plan to add funds or, if the total amount of funds available for allotment is reduced by Congress, to reduce each grantee's grant amount.
( c ) The grantee may modify its plan to add, delete, expand, or reduce any part of the program plan or allowable activities. Such modifications may be made by the grantee without our approval except where the modification reduces the total number of participants to be served annually under intensive and/or training services by 15 percent or more, in which case the plan may only be modified with Grant Officer approval.
( d ) If the grantee is approved for a regulatory waiver under §§ 669.560 and 669.570, the grantee must submit a modification of its service delivery plan to reflect the effect of the waiver.
### §912. Repealed. Pub. L. 96–465, title II, §2205(1), Oct. 17, 1980, 94 Stat. 2159

Section, acts Aug. 13, 1946, ch. 957, title V, §517, 60 Stat. 1008; Apr. 5, 1955, ch. 23, §4, 69 Stat. 25; July 28, 1956, ch. 770, §6, 70 Stat. 704; Sept. 8, 1960, Pub. L. 86–723, §9, 74 Stat. 832, related to admission to classes 1 to 7 for Foreign Service officers.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Feb. 15, 1981, except as otherwise provided, see section 2403 of Pub. L. 96–465, set out as an Effective Date note under section 3901 of this title.

#### Transfer of Officers From Old to New Classes

Act Aug. 13, 1946, ch. 957, title XI, §1102, 60 Stat. 1033, which related to transfer of officers from old class to new class, was repealed by Pub. L. 96–465, title II, §2205(1), Oct. 17, 1980, 94 Stat. 2159.

#### In Class Promotions

Act Aug. 13, 1946, ch. 957, title XI, §1104, 60 Stat. 1034, which related to in class promotions, was repealed by Pub. L. 96–465, title II, §2205(1), Oct. 17, 1980, 94 Stat. 2159.
### §§45 to 46b. Repealed. Pub. L. 101–510, div. A, title XV, §1532(b)(1), (2), (5), (6), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1733

Section 45, R.S. §4819; June 12, 1906, ch. 3078, 34 Stat. 242; May 11, 1908, ch. 163, 35 Stat. 110; Nov. 29, 1989, Pub. L. 101–189, div. A, title III, §347(1), 103 Stat. 1422, authorized commissioners to receive donations for benefit of Soldiers' Home.

Section 46, acts Mar. 3, 1883, ch. 130, §8, 22 Stat. 565; July 26, 1947, ch. 343, title II, §205(a), 61 Stat. 501; Dec. 15, 1973, Pub. L. 93–185, 87 Stat. 712, related to investment and withdrawal of funds of Soldiers' Home.

Section 46a, act Apr. 9, 1935, ch. 54, title II, 49 Stat. 147, related to deposit and expenditure of interest earned on funds of Soldiers' Home.

Section 46b, act July 19, 1937, ch. 511, 50 Stat. 519, related to laws governing administration of funds appropriated from Soldiers' Home Permanent Fund.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective one year after Nov. 5, 1990, see section 1541(a) of Pub. L. 101–510, formerly set out as an Effective Date note under section 401 of this title.
### §1667a. Definitions

In this part:

#### (1) Administration

The term "Administration" means the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

#### (2) Demonstration project

The term "demonstration project" means the Indian youth telemental health demonstration project authorized under section 1667b(a) of this title.

#### (3) Telemental health

The term "telemental health" means the use of electronic information and telecommunications technologies to support long-distance mental health care, patient and professional-related education, public health, and health administration.

(Pub. L. 94–437, title VII, §722, as added Pub. L. 111–148, title X, §10221(a), Mar. 23, 2010, 124 Stat. 935.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 722 of Pub. L. 94–437 is based on section 181 of title I of S. 1790, One Hundred Eleventh Congress, as reported by the Committee on Indian Affairs of the Senate in Dec. 2009, which was enacted into law by section 10221(a) of Pub. L. 111–148.
### §277d–33. Authorization; construction, operation, and maintenance, appropriations, and acquisition of land

Pursuant to the agreement concluded under the authority of section 277d–32 of this title, the United States Commissioner is authorized to construct, operate, and maintain the portion of the "International Flood Control Project, Tijuana River Basin," assigned to the United States, and there is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Department of State for use of the United States section the sum of $10,800,000 for construction costs of such project, as modified, based on estimated June 1976 prices, plus or minus such amounts as may be justified by reason of price index fluctuations in costs involved therein, and such sums as may be necessary for its maintenance and operation, except that no funds may be appropriated under sections 277d–32 and 277d–33 of this title for the fiscal year ending on September 30, 1977. Contingent upon the furnishing by the city of San Diego of its appropriate share of the funds for the acquisition of the land and interests therein needed to carry out the agreement between the United States and Mexico to construct such project, the Secretary of State, acting through the United States Commissioner, is further authorized to participate financially with non-Federal interests in the acquisition of said lands and interest therein, to the extent that funds provided by the city of San Diego are insufficient for this purpose.

(Pub. L. 89–640, §2, Oct. 10, 1966, 80 Stat. 884; Pub. L. 94–425, Sept. 28, 1976, 90 Stat. 1333.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1976—Pub. L. 94–425 substituted provisions authorizing appropriations of $10,800,000 for construction costs for project based on June 1976 prices, with exception that no funds may be appropriated for fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 1977 for provisions authorizing appropriations not to exceed $12,600,000 for construction costs for project, eliminated provision requiring approval of title by Attorney General, and inserted provision authorizing financial participation of Secretary of State through Commissioner to acquire land for construction of project contingent upon city of San Diego furnishing its appropriate share of funds.
### SUBCHAPTER VII—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
December 2022

STORAGE 1000 ACREFEET COMPUTED*

RELEASE - C.F.S. EVAPORATION

PRECIP

DAY ELEV IN LAKE CHANGE INFLOW C.F.S. OUTLET SPILL C.F.S. INCHES INCHES

9.45

1 794.60 9.52 0.07 46 10 0 0 0.00 0.46

2 794.75 9.59 0.07 46 10 0 0 0.03 0.06

3 794.88 9.65 0.06 43 10 0 1 0.04 0.00

4 794.98 9.70 0.05 35 10 0 0 0.00 0.11

5 795.10 9.76 0.06 39 10 0 0 0.01 0.25

6 795.18 9.80 0.04 30 10 0 0 0.01 0.01

7 795.26 9.84 0.04 30 10 0 0 0.02 0.02

8 795.31 9.86 0.03 23 10 0 0 0.02 0.00

9 795.36 9.89 0.02 23 10 0 1 0.06 0.25

10 795.43 9.92 0.04 28 10 0 0 0.00 0.23

11 795.86 10.14 0.21 118 10 0 0 0.00 0.58

12 796.56 10.49 0.36 179 0 0 0 0.02 0.26

13 796.76 10.60 0.10 52 0 0 0 0.01 0.00

14 796.86 10.65 0.05 26 0 0 0 0.02 0.00

15 796.92 10.68 0.03 17 0 0 1 0.03 0.00

16 796.98 10.71 0.03 16 0 0 0 0.01 0.00

17 797.02 10.73 0.02 11 0 0 0 0.02 0.00

18 797.07 10.76 0.03 13 0 0 0 0.02 0.00

19 797.10 10.77 0.02 8 0 0 0 0.00 0.00

20 797.13 10.79 0.02 8 0 0 0 0.01 0.00

21 797.18 10.82 0.03 13 0 0 0 0.01 0.00

22 797.22 10.84 0.02 11 0 0 0 0.01 0.00

23 797.25 10.85 0.02 8 0 0 0 0.01 0.00

24 797.28 10.87 0.02 8 0 0 0 0.01 0.00

25 797.33 10.89 0.03 14 0 0 0 0.02 0.00

26 797.37 10.92 0.02 11 0 0 0 0.01 0.00

27 797.55 11.01 0.10 50 0 0 2 0.09 1.37

28 804.35 15.00 3.99 2,010 0 0 0 0.01 0.03

29 806.22 16.23 1.23 620 0 0 0 0.00 0.30

30 807.42 17.05 0.82 413 0 0 0 0.00 0.45

31 816.10 23.70 6.66 3,356 0 0 1 0.03 0.34

TOTALS 14.28 7,305 110 0 6 0.53 4.72

ACRE-FEET 14,280 14,489 218 0 12

Comments: *Computed inflow is the sum of change in storage, releases and evaporation.

Release (ACRE-FEET)

Outlet 218

Spill 0

Total 218

Precipitation

This month = 4.72

July 01, 2022 To 

date =

8.29

SUMMARY

Historical Archive and Report Database

Stony Gorge Reservoir Daily Operations

Run Date: 1/6/2023
October 01, 2022 

To date =

5.73

Historical Archive and Report Database

Stony Gorge Reservoir Daily Operations

Run Date: 1/6/2023
### SUBCHAPTER XXX–D—CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF COOS, LOWER UMPQUA, AND SIUSLAW INDIANS: RESTORATION OF FEDERAL SUPERVISION
### May3,2012 

### Docket Management Facility U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140 Washington, DC 20590 Boston Executive Helicopters 209 Access Road 

## lllil ;'1

## AY !

## 0 P I: 3 2 Norwood, MA 02062

-· · Tel.: (781) 603-6186 Email: cbris@bostonexecutivebelicopters.com

We are requesting an exemption from needing to maintain two Alcohol and Drug Prevention Programs. We have a small FAR 135, "On Demand", Charterand Tour operation, Boston Executive Helicopters and a FAR 91 "Local Tour" operation. We have a total oftwo aircraft used for both FAR 135 and 91 operations. OurPilot count 

### is 1, serving both the FAR 135 and 91 operations. This situation givesthe pilot the possibility ofbeing randomly selected for testing for both operations at the same time. 

### Itwi11 more than double the expense tothe companyto maintain both programs. In that we are a small operation, this amounts to a financial hardship for us. I personally have the direct oversight ofthe Alcohol and Drug Prevention Programs and can more than adequately manage all personnel under one program. I believe this will still meetthe intended goals ofthe Alcohol and Drug Prevention and monitoring for the Federal Aviation Administration. We are therefore requesting that an exemption be given, allowing us to have all companypersonnel in one Alcohol and Drug Prevention Program per 14 CFRPart 120, 14 CFRPart 

### 119 and 14 CFR Part 91.147. Ifyou have any concerns or questions, please feel free to contact me at any ofthe following: Cell: (781) 603-6186 E-Mail: chris@bostonexecutivehelicopters.com Certificates: 6BEA779M I BXHJEA61 Thank you for yourtime and consideration ofthis request. I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Christopher Donovan President
.·' · ·F' ' Boston Executive Helicopters 

# .. _.l-.
.. !
..**~** l
. ' '.

- • l r**-:;,.~** I ,- . ' '.( 

### ...
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

June 28, 2011 

t0620 

Order 

 

June 28, 2011 

142887 

GENRE BROGUE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 142887 

 COA: 295422 

Wayne CC: 08-015317-CZ 

COMCAST, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 17, 2011 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, *v.*Floyd Brennecke, Defendant-Appellant.

(No. 72-99;

Second District —

September 20, 1973.

Linda West Conley, of Chicago, for appellant.

William J. Cowlin, State’s Attorney, of Woodstock, (John D. Corby, Assistant State’s Attorney, of counsel,) for the People.

Opinion by

Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE GUILD.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. George L. Walker, Appellant.

Present— Crosby, P. J., Cunningham, Dowling, Harris and MeCurn, JJ.
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2012-0355 Directorate ID: 2011-SW-013-AD

Helicopter Model: Agusta S.p.A. Model AB412 Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 0 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: The actions specified in this AD are intended to prevent loss of the blade tip weight, loss 

of a blade, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

Costs: There are currently no costs of compliance because no helicopters of this type design are 

on the U.S. Registry.

Parts per Helicopter $

Labor per Helicopter

(X x $85/work-hour for the 

inspection)

$

Other (Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter $

Total US Fleet Cost $

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Sharon Miles
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

 156

 146

 141

 132

 143

 134

 139

 135

 133

 132

 125

 122

 129

 122

 131

 130

 136

 133

 138

 128

 121

 136

 122

 119

 118

 121

 121

 121

 123

 126

 131

 124

 120

 121

 120

 123

 122

 121

 123

 117

 114

 109

 111

 110

 114

 123

 114

 120

 115

 107

 106

 111

 114

 108

 112

 112

 111

 110

 110

 111

 136

 134

 127

 128

 131

 129

 132

 127

 128

 124

 119

 116

 119

 115

 122

 128

 127

 124

 127

 118

 115

 119

 118

 112

 116

 117

 117

 116

 117

 118

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

APRIL 2002 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: May 8, 2002

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

STATEN ISLAND ON THE SOUTH FORK MOKELUMNE RIVER
#### The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Terry *et al.,*Defendants-Appellants.

(No. 58455;

First District (5th Division)

June 7, 1974.

James J. Doherty, Public Defender, of Chicago (Robert Gevirtz, Assistant Public Defender, of counsel), for appellants.

Bernard Carey, State’s Attorney, of Chicago (Kenneth L. Gillis and Alan W. Brothers, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

PER CURIAM.
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

31

DAY ELEV

 707.99

 707.16

 710.00

 707.10

 707.53

 709.72

 711.10

 712.17

 713.09

 711.65

 712.42

 713.14

 712.03

 712.68

 713.26

 711.85

 710.66

 711.29

 711.80

 712.33

 712.79

 713.22

 713.62

 712.92

 712.10

 712.62

 713.03

 713.39

 713.72

 714.05

 714.35

 805

 781

 861

 780

 792

 853

 894

 926

 954

 911

 934

 955

 922

 941

 959

 917

 881

 900

 915

 931

 945

 958

 971

 949

 924

 940

 952

 963

 974

 985

 994

STORAGE

+18

-24

+80

-81

+12

+61

+41

+32

+28

-43

+23

+21

-33

+19

+18

-42

-36

+19

+15

+16

+14

+13

+13

-22

-25

+16

+12

+11

+11

+11

+9

CHANGE

27

10

41

-12

18

32

22

17

15

-1

13

12

0

11

10

-2

-3

11

9

9

8

8

8

1

-1

9

7

7

7

7

6

INFLOW

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 18

 22

 1

 29

 12

 1

 1

 1

 1

 21

 1

 1

 17

 1

 1

 19

 15

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 12

 12

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1020

 1040

 1040

 1025

TIME

 .14

 .15

 .15

 .16

COPPER

 .36

 .40

 .43

 .46

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

MARCH 2007 SPRING CREEK DEBRIS RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: June 7, 2007

IN LAKE

SPRING CR DEBRIS DAM

ZINC

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS +207 306 0 198

ACRE-FEET +207 607 0 393

COMMENTS:

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

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

SPILL 0

OUTLET

TOTAL

 393

 393

 787

SPILL OUTLET

**KES

COPPER

MG/L

 .004

 .003

 .002

 .002

Table 7
#### Narine AZNAVOURYAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-74318.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 13, 2006.*

Decided Feb. 21, 2006.

D. Jade Mundel, Marks *&*Acalin, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.

District Director, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Securi*199ty, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Ari Nazarov, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

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).

MEMORANDUM **

Narine Aznavouryan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reconsider the BIA’s order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo constitutional claims, *Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales,*424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005), and review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider, *Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft,*383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), *amended by*404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion when it denied reconsideration because petitioner did not show any error of fact or law. *See 8*C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). Aznavouryan’s most recent motion to reopen, filed on March 24, 2004, was number-barred and no exceptions applied. *See 8*C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), (3). By filing successive motions to reopen petitioner protracted immigration proceedings for nine years. It was to proscribe this type of conduct that Congress instructed the agency to issue regulations limiting the number of motions to reopen and reconsider. *See Stone v. INS,*514 U.S. 386, 400, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995) (“a principal purpose of the [statute] was to expedite petitions for review and to redress the related problem of successive and frivolous administrative appeals and motions.”); *see also INS v. Doherty,*502 U.S. 314, 323, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992).

Aznavouryan’s remaining contentions, including those alleging that the limits on filing motions to reopen violate due process, are without merit.

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.
### §1659. Facilities renovation

The Secretary may make funds available to contractors or grant recipients under this subchapter for renovations to facilities or construction or expansion of facilities, including leased facilities.

(Pub. L. 94–437, title V, §509, formerly §409, as added Pub. L. 101–630, title V, §506(c), Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 4566; renumbered §509 and amended Pub. L. 102–573, title V, §§501(b)(6), 505(b)(2), title IX, §902(5)(A), Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4569, 4571, 4591; Pub. L. 111–148, title X, §10221(a), Mar. 23, 2010, 124 Stat. 935; Pub. L. 117–58, div. G, title XI, §71104, Nov. 15, 2021, 135 Stat. 1326.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Amendment by Pub. L. 111–148 is based on section 161 of title I of S. 1790, One Hundred Eleventh Congress, as reported by the Committee on Indian Affairs of the Senate in Dec. 2009, which was enacted into law by section 10221(a) of Pub. L. 111–148.

#### Amendments

2021—Pub. L. 117–58 struck out "minor" before "renovations" and ", to assist such contractors or grant recipients in meeting or maintaining the Joint Commission for Accreditation of Health Care Organizations (JCAHO) standards" before period at end.

2010—Pub. L. 111–148 inserted "or construction or expansion of facilities" after "renovations to facilities".

1992—Pub. L. 102–573, §902(5)(A), made technical amendment to section catchline.

Pub. L. 102–573, §505(b)(2), struck out last sentence which authorized appropriation of $1,000,000 for fiscal year 1992 to carry out this section.

Pub. L. 102–573, §501(b)(6), inserted "or grant recipients" after "contractors" in two places.