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

AR/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ELISANGELA OLIVEIRA CARDOSOCAETANO,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-71956

Agency No. A097-344-094

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 11, 2010** 

Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Elisangela Oliveira Cardoso-Caetano, a native and citizen of Brazil, petitions

for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying her

motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.

FILED

JAN 21 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
AR/Research 2 07-71956

§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen,

Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777, 782 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition for

review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to reopen

because the BIA considered the evidence Cardoso-Caetano submitted and acted

within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence was insufficient to

warrant reopening. See Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (the

BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or

contrary to law.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### Ida L. French, Respondent, v. City of New Rochelle, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Ho opinion. Jenks, P. J., Burr, Thomas, Stapleton and Rich, JJ., concurred.-
1

The Honorable William A. Knox, United States Magistrate Judge for the

Western District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by

consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-1410

___________

Union Electric Company, doing *

business as Ameren UE, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

James Devine, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 12, 2010

Filed: November 17, 2010

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In a prior appeal, this court affirmed the district court’s1

 November 2007 and

January 2008 orders holding James Devine in contempt and directing him to take

action to remove certain docks and structures on his lake property, to reimburse Union

Electric Company (UE) for its cost in removing a derelict houseboat, and to pay UE’s

attorneys’ fees. See Union Electric Co. v. Devine, 334 Fed. Appx. 37 (8th Cir. 2009)
-2-

(unpublished per curiam). Devine now appeals an order entered in January 2010,

granting UE’s motion for entry of judgment against him in the amount of $32,643.02,

which includes UE’s new expenses in enforcing the November 2007 order and unpaid

amounts awarded earlier. Because Devine’s arguments all relate only to matters

resolved during the previous appeal, we affirm. See In re Just Brakes Corp. Sys., Inc.,

293 F.3d 1069, 1072 (8th Cir. 2002) (law-of-the-case doctrine prevents relitigation of

issues resolved in earlier proceedings). 

______________________________
### §32a. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 32a was editorially reclassified as section 6112 of this title.
#### § 190.144 Refund of duties.

Drawback allowed under this subpart will be refunded in aggregate amounts of not less than $100, and will not be subject to the deduction of 1 percent of duties paid.
§ 144.32 Statement of quantity; charges and liens. ( a ) *On each withdrawal.* Each withdrawal filed shall have indicated thereon, preferably in the lower part of the left-hand margin if there is no space designated on the form for such information, a summary statement of the account to which it is related. The statement shall indicate: ( 1 ) The quantity (*i.e.*, the number of outer containers, or tons, etc.) in the warehouse account before the withdrawal;
( 2 ) The quantity being withdrawn; and
( 3 ) The quantity remaining in warehouse after the withdrawal. The quantity in each instance may be shown as a cumulative total event though it may include a group of varied units such as boxes, cases, or cartons, and may consist of more than one commodity, such as distilled spirits, chinaware, etc.
( b ) *Transferred merchandise.* When all or a portion of an original lot has been transferred to a new owner in accordance with subpart C of this part, each withdrawal by the transferee shall show only the quantity on hand in the transferee's name before the withdrawal, the quantity being withdrawn by the transferee, and the transferred quantity remaining in the warehouse after the withdrawal. The quantity retained by the original importer and the quantity transferred shall be treated as separate accounts.
( c ) *Charges and liens.* Upon receipt of an application to withdraw merchandise the appropriate Customs officer shall determine whether there are any cartage, storage, labor, or any other charges due the Government in connection with the goods remaining unpaid or whether there is on file any notice of lien filed by a carrier. If there are no charges or liens or all charges and liens have been satisfied, and all other requirements of law or regulations have been met, the application to withdraw shall be approved.
[T.D. 73-175, 38 FR 17464, July 2, 1973, as amended by T.D. 82-204, 47 FR 49376, Nov. 1, 1982; T.D. 86-118, 51 FR 22516, June 20, 1986]
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION III

 801 Warrenville Road

 Lisle IL 60532

 Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov

No. III-02-051 September 13, 2002

CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663 E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662 

NOTE TO EDITORS: TELEPHONE ACCESS FOR SEPT. 18 DAVIS-BESSE MEETING

The September 18 meeting between the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff and FirstEnergy

Nuclear Operating Co. officials, being held at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, will be

accessible by teleconference.

This meeting was previously announced in NRC News Release No. III-02-050. The two other

meetings on September 17, covered in that announcement, will not be available by teleconference

because of the communications capabilities of the high school auditorium where the meetings are

being held. The meetings are open to the public.

The September 18 meeting is scheduled for 9 a.m. (EDT) at Davis-Besse’s Energy Education

Center, 5501 North State Route 2, near Oak Harbor, Ohio. The public is invited to observe the

business portion of the meeting and will have an opportunity to make comments and ask questions of

the NRC staff before the meeting is adjourned.

The NRC is making telephone bridge lines available to members of the public who cannot

attend. To access the conference, call toll-free (877) 601-4713 and provide the operator with pass code

"Davis Besse."

The meeting will focus on the utility’s proposed corrective action plans to address

management, organizational effectiveness and human performance issues that were discussed during

the August 15 public meeting in Lisle, Illinois, as the root causes that are believed to have led to the

degradation of the reactor pressure vessel head. 

# # #
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20555

Phone 301-415-8200 Fax 301-415-2234

Internet:opa@nrc.gov

No. 96-177 FOR IMMEDIATE

RELEASE

(Thursday, December 5,

1996)

NRC ISSUES INTERIM GUIDANCE ON TRANSPORTATION

OF STEAM GENERATORS

The staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued a

generic letter providing interim guidance on transportation

regulations governing the shipment of used steam generators. The

letter was sent today to all holders of operating licenses and

decommissioning facilities with possession-only licenses for

pressurized-water nuclear power reactors.

In the past, shippers of steam generators have been required

to obtain package certification from the NRC before shipping

them. Steam generators were required to meet the standards for

non-accident resistant, or Type A packages, because they were

categorized for shipment as low-specific activity material.

However, in a change which became effective April 1, NRC and

the Department of Transportation have revised their regulations

to make them compatible with those of the International Atomic

Energy Agency. As a result, discarded steam generators may now

be categorized as surface contaminated objects, a newly defined

category of radioactive materials. Unless the unshielded dose

rate at three meters from the steam generator shipped as a

surface contaminated object exceeds one rem per hour, NRC package

certification is not required.

The generic letter makes two other important clarifications

of federal regulations, as they apply to steam generator

shipments:

1. If a shipper can demonstrate that a steam generator that

qualifies as a surface contaminated object, with weld-sealed

enclosures provides equivalent safety to the required packaging,

the shipper may request an exemption from DOT transport

requirements. Pursuant to the applicable DOT regulations,

notices of applications for these exemptions will be published in

the Federal Register.
2. If the necessary DOT approvals are obtained and if the

requirements of NRC regulations are otherwise met, the shipper

will not have to seek an identical exemption from NRC.

#
### Part D—Miscellaneous

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

#### Plaque To Honor Members of Law Enforcement Who Responded on January 6, 2021

Pub. L. 117–103, div. I, title II, §214, Mar. 15, 2022, 136 Stat. 527, provided that:

"(a) Sense of Congress.—It is the sense of Congress that the United States owes its deepest gratitude to those officers of the United States Capitol Police and the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia, as well as officers from other Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies and protective entities, who valiantly protected the United States Capitol, Members of Congress, and staff on January 6, 2021.

"(b) Plaque.—Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act [Mar. 15, 2022], the Architect of the Capitol shall obtain an honorific plaque listing the names of all of the officers of the United States Capitol Police, the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia, and other Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies and protective entities who responded to the violence that occurred at the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, and shall place the plaque at a permanent location on the western front of the United States Capitol.

"(c) Compilation and Confirmation of List of Names.—

"(1) List of names for plaque.—The Chairs and Ranking Members of the Committee on House Administration of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate, and the Subcommittees on the Legislative Branch of the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and Senate shall jointly compile and confirm a list of the officers of the United States Capitol Police, the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia, and other Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies and protective entities whose names should be included on the plaque under this section.

"(2) Inclusion of names of specific officers.—In compiling the list under paragraph (1), the Chairs and Ranking Members of the Committees and Subcommittees described in such paragraph shall include the names of the specific individuals described in paragraph (2) of section 215(c) of H. R. 4346, One Hundred Seventeenth Congress, as passed by the House of Representatives on July 28, 2021."
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 17-3563

___________________________

Guadalupe EspinosaGarcia;Guadalupe Espejel Espinosa;Juan Jose Espejel Espinosa

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioners

v.

Matthew G. Whitaker, Acting Attorney General of the United States

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent

____________

Petition for Review of an Order of the

 Board of Immigration Appeals

____________

Submitted: November 29, 2018

Filed: December 7, 2018

[Unpublished]

____________

Before BENTON, BOWMAN, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Guadalupe Espinosa Garcia, individually and on behalf of her two minor

children, all natives and citizens of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals upholding an immigration judge’s denial of

withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
Upon review, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the denial of

withholding ofremoval because Espinosa Garcia did not show a clear probability that

her life or freedom would be threatened on account of membership in a particular

social group, or any other protected ground should she be returned to Mexico. See

8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A) (listing protected grounds); De Castro-Gutierrez v. Holder,

713 F.3d 375, 379 (8th Cir. 2013) (discussing standard of review). We also conclude

that substantial evidence supports the denial of Espinosa Garcia’s CAT claim. See

Ngure v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 975, 992 (8th Cir. 2004) (individual seeking CAT

protection must demonstrate it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned

to home country).

The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-2-
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on September 16, 2004, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Insulated Cable Engineers Association, Inc. (“ICEA”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the name and principal place of business of the standards development organization and (2) the nature and scope of its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.                

                    Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place of business of the standards development organization is: Insulated Cable Engineers Association, Inc., Carrollton, GA. The nature and scope of ICEA's standards development activities are: Since 1925 ICEA has written, published and maintained Papers, Standards and                           ( print page 62293)                        Test Procedures relating to the design and testing of insulated power and telecommunications cables. These cables are used for power, control, data and voice communications. Electric utilities, telecommunications companies, government agencies and end users use these standards for the specification and purchase of insulated cables used throughout North America. These standards receive American National Standards Institute (ANSI) approval and are the American Standard.                

Dorothy B. Fountain,

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 04-23784  Filed 10-22-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
NO. 12-09-00118-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

GUILLERMO GALINDEZ, § APPEAL FROM THE 

APPELLANT

V. § COUNTY COURT AT LAW OF

JEROLD HAIRFORD AND 

RICHARD FOSTER, INDIVIDUALLY

AND AS PARTNERS OF ISIS 

REAL ESTATE SERVICES; § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

ISIS INVESTIGATIONS, INC. 

AND TIM LEE,

APPELLEES

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Appellant Guillermo Galindez filed a notice of appeal evidencing his intent to appeal an

order granting summary judgment and sanctions in favor of Appellee Richard “Tony” Foster and an

order granting the same relief to Appellee Jerald “Tony” Hairford, both of which were signed on

March 26, 2009. 

The orders Galindez seeks to appeal do not dispose of all parties and claims before the trial

court. Absent a final judgment or an otherwise appealable interlocutory order, we have no

jurisdiction over the appeal. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001).

Therefore, on April 28, 2009, this court notified Galindez, pursuant to Texas Rules of Appellate

Procedure 37.2 and 42.3, that the information received in this appeal does not show the jurisdiction

of this court in that there is no final judgment or appealable order contained therein. Galindez was

further notified that the appeal would be dismissed unless, on or before May 8, 2009, the information

was amended to show the jurisdiction of this court. 
2

In response to this court’s April 28, 2009 notice, Galindez, through his attorney of record,

notified this court that he agrees the orders are interlocutory and that he does not oppose dismissal

of the appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. TEX.R.APP.P. 42.3©.

Opinion delivered May 13, 2009.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(PUBLISH)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Global
Industries, Ltd.'s financial statements for the nine-months ended December 31,
1997 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          27,115
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  100,855
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               159,794
<PP&E>                                         409,638
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 611,110
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           92,474
<BONDS>                                        135,730
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           913
<OTHER-SE>                                     352,394
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   611,110
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               292,383
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  201,470
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,459
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 74,711
<INCOME-TAX>                                    28,390
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             46,321
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    46,321
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .49
        

</TABLE>
(LOGO)ERNST & YOUNG LLP
          One Columbus
          10 West Broad Street                    Phone: 614 224 5678
          Columbus, Ohio 43215-3400               Fax:   614 222 3939





                          Independent Auditors' Report

Board of Directors
The Huntington Mortgage Company

We have examined  management's  assertion,  included in the accompanying  report
titled REPORT OF MANAGEMENT,  that The  Huntington  Mortgage  Company  (HMC), a
wholly-owned  subsidiary  of The  Huntington  National  Bank,  complied with the
minimum  servicing  standards set forth in the Mortgage  Bankers  Association of
America's  UNIFORM SINGLE  ATTESTATION  PROGRAM FOR MORTGAGE  BANKERS during the
year ended  December 31, 1997.  Management is responsible  for HMC's  compliance
with  those  requirements.  Our  responsibility  is to  express  an  opinion  on
management's assertion about HMC's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination  was conducted in accordance  with standards  established by the
American  Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,  accordingly,  included
examining,  on  a  test  basis,  evidence  about  HMC's  compliance  with  those
requirements and performing such other procedures as we considered  necessary in
the circumstances.  We believe that our examination  provides a reasonable basis
for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on HMC's
compliance with specified requirements.

In our opinion, management's assertion that HMC complied with the aforementioned
requirements  during the year ended December 31, 1997 is fairly  stated,  in all
material respects.

                                                      /s/Ernst & Young LLP


March 12, 1998


       Ernst & Young LLP is a member of Ernst & Young International, Ltd.
114 STAT. 1318 PUBLIC LAW 106–344—OCT. 20, 2000

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.J.Res. 114:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 146 (2000):

Oct. 19, considered and passed House and Senate.

Æ

Public Law 106–344

106th Congress

Joint Resolution

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2001, and for other

purposes.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, That Public Law

106–275 is further amended by striking ‘‘October 20, 2000’’ in

section 106(c) and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘October 25, 2000’’.

Notwithstanding section 106 of Public Law 106–275, funds shall

be available and obligations for mandatory payments due on or

about November 1, 2000, may continue to be made.

Approved October 20, 2000.

Ante, p. 806, 810,

1073.

Oct. 20, 2000

[H.J. Res. 114]