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

No. 13

- 60297 Summary Calendar

GABRIEL ADRIAN GARCIA, also known as Gabriel Adrian Garcia Leal , Petitioner

v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL , Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A300 321 217

Before DeMOSS, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Gabriel Adrian Garcia petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ’s (BIA) dismiss al of his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) order denying his motion to reopen . He claims , wi thout citing anything in the record before us , that the IJ erro neously concluded that the Department of Homeland Security ( DHS ) could not exercise its prosecutorial discretion to terminate or defer his removal until he was ordered removed

. Although he concedes that

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 3, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-60297 Document: 00512549123 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/03/2014N o. 13

- 60297

“DHS never indicated that it intended to exercise [i ts ] discretion” in his case, Garcia nonetheless contends that he was denied due process because his
circumstances warrant ed the exercise of prosecutorial discretion pursuant to a memorandum from John Morton, Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), that authorizes ICE attorneys to exercise prosecutorial discretion at any stage of the removal proceedings

. We review the decision of the BIA unless the IJ’s decision influenced the BIA’s decision. Efe v. Ashcroft , 293 F.3d 899, 903 (5th Cir. 2002 ). Since the BIA adopted the IJ’s findings and conclusions, the IJ’s findings are reviewable. See i d.
We l ack jurisdiction to consider Garcia’s challenge to the exercise of DHS’s prosecutorial discretion to terminate or defer his removal

. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g). We have jurisdiction to review the denial of Garcia’s motion to

reopen. See Nolos v. Holder , 611 F.3d 279, 281 (5th Cir. 2010). However, Garcia does not address the IJ’s finding that his motion to reopen was untimely, thereby waiving consideration of the issue. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1); Soadjede v. Ashcroft , 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003). To the extent that Garcia argues that the IJ should have

reo pened the removal proceeding via his sua sponte a uthority , we lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s w holly discretionary refusal to do so. Ramos

Bonilla v. Mukasey , 543 F.3d 216, 220 (5th Cir. 2008). Finally, Garcia cannot establish a due process violation related to his motion to reopen because “t here is no liberty interest at stake in a motion to reopen

. ” Altamirano

- Lopez v. Gonzales , 435 F.3d 547, 550 (5th Cir. 2006)

. Garcia’s petition for review is DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part for lack of jurisdiction

.

2 Case: 13-60297 Document: 00512549123 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/03/2014
#### § 3811.1 Lands: General.

Vacant public surveyed or unsurveyed lands are open to prospecting, and upon discovery of mineral, to location and purchase. The Act of June 4, 1897 (30 Stat. 36), provides that “any mineral lands in any forest reservation which have been or which may be shown to be such, and subject to entry under the existing mining laws of the United States and the rules and regulations applying thereto, shall continue to be subject to such location and entry,” notwithstanding the reservation. This makes mineral lands in the forest reserves in the public land states, subject to location and entry under the general mining laws in the usual manner. Lands entered or patented under the stockraising homestead law (title to minerals and the use of the surface necessary for mining purposes can be acquired), lands entered under other agricultural laws but not perfected, where prospecting can be done peaceably are open to location.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. James E. Brackett, Appellant, against Walter B. Martin, as Warden of Clinton Prison, Dannemora, Respondent.

All concur.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of VAALCO Energy, Inc. (the “**Company**”) onForm 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “**Report**”), I, Robert L. Gerry, III, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge: 

(1) The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

(2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

Dated:May 9, 2007
- Skip to global NPS navigation
    - Skip to the main content
    - Skip to the footer section

National Park Service**Search

# **OpenMenu**CloseMenu

## Explore This Park

## Explore the National Park Service

## Exiting nps.gov

Travel World War II Sites in the San Francisco Bay Area
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-60325

Summary Calendar

 

REGINALD GALLAGHER,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

DONALD MCKELVEY; HINES; THOMAS;

COLL; RUSSELL; JOHN TORRES; 

BUCHANNAN; HOLLAND; MUHAMMAD; 

GLEN-RAY; STEVE BITHER; YUSUFF;

SMITH,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 5:98-CV-189-BrS

- - - - - - - - - -

February 28, 2002

Before JOLLY, DAVIS and STEWART, Circuit Judges:

PER CURIAM:*

Reginald Gallagher, federal prisoner # 20174-001, appealsthe district court’s dismissal of his

civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents

of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), for failure to state a claim. Gallagher argues that

he adequately stated claims for inadequate medical treatment, conspiracy, and retaliation. 

Gallagher alleged in his complaint that he had a leg operation due to an unspecified medical

condition, that it was determined that he would need another operation, but that he was treated with
 

-2-

medicine instead. On appeal, he asserts that he has received the operation but that he has been denied

recommended postoperative treatment. He alleged in conclusional terms that the delay in medical

care caused him to suffer and endangered his health. 

Gallagher’s disagreement with his medical treatment and the alleged delay in receiving such

treatment, along with his failure to specify how this caused him substantial harm, are insufficient to

state a constitutional violation. See Campbell v. City of San Antonio, 43 F.3d 973, 975 (5th Cir.

1995); Mendoza v. Lynaugh, 989 F.2d 191, 195 (5thCir. 1993); Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320,

321 (5th Cir. 1991). Because his assertion that he is receiving inadequate postoperative treatment

was not raised before the district court, we do not consider it here. See Leverette v. Louisville

Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1138 (2000). Given the

inadequacy of his allegations of the denial of medical treatment, Gallagher also has failed to state a

conspiracy claim based on this treatment. See 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3).

On appeal, Gallagher argues for the first time that his transfer to an upper level cell, despite

a medical recommendation that he be housed on a lower level, was done in retaliation for his filing

administrative grievances. Because Gallagher did not raise this issue below, we do not consider it

here. See Leverette, 183 F.3d at 342. Gallagher has abandoned his additional claims of retaliation

and his assertion of price fixing by failing to brief these issues on appeal. See Yohey v. Collins, 985

F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT
      10.3.1








FIRST
      AMENDMENT TO THE


DISTRIBUTION


AND


MANUFACTURING
      SERVICES AGREEMENT


BETWEEN


LEVPHARMA


AND


SANQUIN








THIS
      FIRST AMENDMENT is entered into effective as of the latest of the dates of
      signatures hereunder by and between the Parties to the DISTRIBUTION AND
      MANUFACTURING SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN LEVPHARMA AND SANQUIN dated January
      16,
      2004 (the “AGREEMENT”): LEV PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., a corporation formed under
      the laws of the state of Delaware, having an address at 236 Old Lancaster Road,
      Merion Station, Pennsylvania 19066 (“LEVPHARMA”) and the SANQUIN BLOOD SUPPLY
      FOUNDATION, a not-for-profit organization formed under the laws of The
      Netherlands, having an address at Plesmanlaan 125, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The
      Netherlands, acting for the purposes of the AGREEMENT through its Plasma
      Products Division, (“SANQUIN”).





1.
            The
                Parties agree to amend the AGREEMENT as
                follows:





Under ARTICLE
      I - DEFINITIONS ,





paragraph
      1.14 “TERRITORY” shall be modified to read as follows:





“1.14
      “TERRITORY” shall mean Israel and all countries in North, Central and South
      America with the exception of the Dutch Overseas Territories, Argentina, and
      Brazil. The Territory may be expanded in accordance with the provisions in
      Sections 2.1 and/or 2.2(a) of this Agreement.”





2. Ratification .
      The
      AGREEMENT is ratified and confirmed and shall continue in full force and effect
      as amended hereby.





3. Counterparts .
      This
      FIRST AMENDMENT may be executed in two or more counterparts, and by different
      parties hereto on separate counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an
      original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same
      instrument. This FIRST AMENDMENT may be executed by facsimile with original
      signatures to follow.





IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this FIRST AMENDMENT to the AGREEMENT
      to be executed by their duly authorized representatives.





**LEVPHARMA**Date:
            By:
            /s/ Y.
              T.
              WachtfogelIts: 
Chief
              Scientific Officer




**SANQUIN**Date: 30-01-06
            By:
            /s/ Dr.
              T. J.
              F. BunnenIts: 
              Chairman of the Executive Board
### §6052. Returns regarding payment of wages in the form of group-term life insurance

#### (a) Requirement of reporting

Every employer who during any calendar year provides group-term life insurance on the life of an employee during part or all of such calendar year under a policy (or policies) carried directly or indirectly by such employer shall make a return according to the forms or regulations prescribed by the Secretary, setting forth the cost of such insurance and the name and address of the employee on whose life such insurance is provided, but only to the extent that the cost of such insurance is includible in the employee's gross income under section 79(a). For purposes of this section, the extent to which the cost of group-term life insurance is includible in the employee's gross income under section 79(a) shall be determined as if the employer were the only employer paying such employee remuneration in the form of such insurance.

#### (b) Statements to be furnished to employees with respect to whom information is required

Every employer required to make a return under subsection (a) shall furnish to each employee whose name is required to be set forth in such return a written statement showing the cost of the group-term life insurance shown on such return. The written statement required under the preceding sentence shall be furnished to the employee on or before January 31 of the year following the calendar year for which the return under subsection (a) was required to be made.

(Added Pub. L. 88–272, title II, §204(c)(1), Feb. 26, 1964, 78 Stat. 37; amended Pub. L. 94–455, title XIX, §1906(b)(13)(A), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1834; Pub. L. 99–514, title XV, §1501(c)(14), Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2740.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1986—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 99–514, in amending subsec. (b) generally, substituted "information is required" for "information is furnished" in heading, and in text substituted reference to employers required to make a return for former reference to employers making a return and reference to employees whose name is required to be set forth for former reference to employees whose name is set forth.

1976—Pub. L. 94–455 struck out "or his delegate" after "Secretary" wherever appearing.

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

#### Effective Date of 1986 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 99–514 applicable to returns the due date for which (determined without regard to extensions) is after Dec. 31, 1986, see section 1501(e) of Pub. L. 99–514, set out as an Effective Date note under section 6721 of this title.

#### Effective Date

Section applicable to group-term life insurance provided after Dec. 31, 1963, in taxable years ending after such date, see section 204(d) of Pub. L. 88–272, set out as a note under section 79 of this title.
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

DAY HIGH

 391

 375

 368

 420

 396

 377

 469

 392

 421

 419

 423

 430

 385

 393

 411

 431

 418

 374

 383

 439

 413

 371

 360

 361

 408

 390

 409

 401

 279

 279

 282

 283

 281

 282

 282

 286

 288

 288

 286

 297

 301

 307

 312

 316

 318

 317

 315

 317

 322

 324

 324

 320

 324

 321

 314

 322

 307

 305

 305

 316

 315

 314

 340

 315

 342

 322

 322

 329

 324

 324

 336

 342

 346

 337

 336

 355

 354

 339

 340

 337

 353

 356

 355

 354

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

FEBRUARY 2011 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: March 30, 2011

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

VICTORIA CANAL ON THE MIDDLE RIVER
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 12, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 60616]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-22810]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION OF FINE ARTS


Notice of Meeting

    The next meeting of the Commission of Fine Arts is scheduled for 21 
October 2004 at 10 a.m. in the Commission's offices at the National 
Building Museum, Suite 312, Judiciary Square, 401 F Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20001-2728. Items of discussion affecting the appearance 
of Washington, DC, may include buildings, parks and memorials.
    Draft agendas and additional information regarding the Commission 
are available on our Web site: http://www.cfa.gov. Inquiries regarding 
the agenda and requests to submit written or oral statements should be 
addressed to Frederick J. Lindstrom, Acting Secretary, Commission of 
Fine Arts, at the above address or call (202) 504-2200. Individuals 
requiring sign language interpretation for the hearing impaired should 
contact the Secretary at least 10 days before the meeting date.

    Dated in Washington, DC, 28 September 2004.
Frederick J. Lindstrom,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 04-22810 Filed 10-8-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6330-01-M
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO. 20-80743-CIV-MARRA 

DAVID POSCHMANN, 

 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

S & F PROPERTIES OF THE PALM 

BEACHES, INC. and MNSB MANAGEMENT, 

INC., 

 

 Defendants. 

______________________________________/ 

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Plaintiff, by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby dismisses this action with 

prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) with each side to bear his/its 

own fees and costs except as otherwise agreed in the parties' settlement agreement. 

Dated: July 1, 2020 

s/Drew M. Levitt 

DREW M. LEVITT 

drewmlevitt@gmail.com 

Florida Bar No. 782246 

 LEE D. SARKIN, ESQ. 

Lsarkin@aol.com 

Florida Bar No. 962848 

4700 N.W. Boca Raton Blvd., Ste. 302 

Boca Raton, Florida 33431 

Telephone (561) 994-6922 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Case 9:20-cv-80743-KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 1 of 1
#### In the Matter of Anna T. O’C. Blair, Appellant, against Edward S. McSweeny et al., Constituting the Medical Board of the Teachers’ Retirement Board, et al., Respondents.

No opinion. Present — Martin, P. J., Glennon, Untermyer, Dore and Cohn, JJ.
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 42 (Wednesday, March 4, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 11722]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-04442]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

 [Docket Number DOT-OST-2014-0228]

Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B 
(Formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending December 20, 2014

AGENCY: Department of Transportation (DOT).

SUMMARY: The following Applications for Certificates of Public 
Convenience and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed 
under Subpart B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of 
Transportation's Procedural Regulations (See 14 CFR 302. 201 et seq.). 
The due date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify 
Scope are set forth below for each application. Following the Answer 
period DOT may process the application by expedited procedures. Such 
procedures may consist of the adoption of a show-cause order, a 
tentative order, or in appropriate cases a final order without further 
proceedings.

    Date Filed: December 19, 2014.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: January 9, 2015.

Description

    Application of Air Busan Co., Ltd. requesting an exemption and a 
foreign air carrier permit authorizing Air Busan to engage in (1) 
scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail 
from points behind the Republic of Korea via the Republic of Korea and 
intermediate points to a point or points in the United States and 
beyond; (2) charter foreign air transportation of persons, property and 
mail between any point or points in the Republic of Korea and any point 
or points in the United States, and between any point or points in the 
United States and any point or points in a third country or countries, 
provided that such service constitutes part of a continuous operation, 
with or without a change of aircraft, that includes service to the 
Republic of Korea for the purpose of carrying local traffic between the 
Republic of Korea and the United States; and (3) other charter foreign 
air transportation.

Barbara J. Hairston,
Supervisory Dockets Officer, Docket Operations, Federal Register 
Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2015-04442 Filed 3-3-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 December 4, 2018

a1126

Order 

Clerk

December 4, 2018

153347

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 153347

COA: 323614

Kalamazoo CC: 2010-001328-FC

DALLAS AUGUSTA McDADE, JR.,

Defendant-Appellee.

_____________________________________/

By order of May 31, 2017, the application for leave to appeal the January 19, 2016 

judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decisions in People v 

Skinner (Docket No. 152448) and People v Hyatt (Docket No. 153081). On order of the 

Court, the cases having been decided on June 20, 2018, 502 Mich 89 (2018), the 

application is again considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting 

leave to appeal, we VACATE the judgment of the Court of Appeals and we REMAND 

this case to that court to review the defendant’s sentence for first-degree murder for an 

abuse of discretion.
§ 4130.5 Free-use grazing permits. ( a ) A free-use grazing permit shall be issued to any applicant whose residence is adjacent to public lands within grazing districts and who needs these public lands to support those domestic livestock owned by the applicant whose products or work are used directly and exclusively by the applicant and his family. The issuance of free-use grazing permits is subject to § 4130.1-2. These permits shall be issued on an annual basis. These permits cannot be transferred or assigned.
( b ) The authorized officer may also authorize free use under the following circumstances: ( 1 ) The primary objective of grazing use is the management of vegetation to meet resource objectives other than the production of livestock forage and such use is in conformance with the requirements of this part;
( 2 ) The primary purpose of grazing use is for scientific research or administrative studies; or
( 3 ) The primary purpose of grazing use is the control of noxious weeds.
[43 FR 29067, July 5, 1978, as amended at 49 FR 6453, Mar. 30, 1984. Redesignated at 60 FR 9965, Feb. 22, 1995, and amended at 60 FR 9966, Feb. 22, 1995; 71 FR 39507, July 12, 2006]
----

Keys to Soil Taxonomy**by Soil Survey Staff**
**United States Department of Agriculture****Natural Resources Conservation Service**
**Seventh Edition, 1996**

Printed copy availableTABLE OF CONTENTS
- Foreword Chapter   1: 
The Soil That We Classify, and Buried Soils
Chapter   2: 
Horizons and Properties Diagnostic for the Higher Categories: Mineral Soils

Figure 1.Andic soil properties
Chapter   3: 
Horizons and Properties Diagnostic for the Higher Categories: Organic Soils
Chapter   4: 
Identification of the Taxonomic Class of a Soil
 (Key To Soil Orders)
Chapter   5: 
Alfisols
Chapter   6: 
Andisols
Chapter   7: 
Aridisols
Chapter   8: 
Entisols
Chapter   9: 
Histosols
Chapter 10: 
Inceptisols
Chapter 11: 
Mollisols
Chapter 12: 
Oxisols
Chapter 13: 
Spodosols
Chapter 14: 
Ultisols
Chapter 15: 
Vertisols
Chapter 16: 
Family and Series Differentiae and Names
- Appendix A:    Designations for Horizons and Layers  Appendix B:
  
SI Unit Conversion Table
Appendix C:
  Figure 2.  
Textural Triangle
Index
Equal Opportunity Statement
Special thanks goes to Ron Bauer, retired from the NRCS, for his diligent work inpreparing these *Keys to Soil Taxonomy* in HTML format.
WWW access developed in cooperation with the Statistical Laboratory at Iowa State University.http://www.statlab.iastate.edu/soils/keytaxApril 21, 1997