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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

YESAYI INDIKUSHYAN and ALBERT 

INDIKUSHYAN, 

Petitioners, 

 v. 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 17-71017 

Agency Nos. A097-857-788 

A095-665-876 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 10, 2018**

Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Yesayi Indikushyan and Albert Indikushyan, citizens of Armenia, petition

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their 

motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUL 13 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-71017 

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

Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and we dismiss in part 

and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ arguments, raised for the first 

time on appeal, as to changed country conditions and why the proffered evidence 

was previously unavailable. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th 

Cir. 2004) (petitioner must exhaust issues or claims in administrative proceedings 

below).

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

untimely, where the motion was filed more than four years after the final order of 

removal, and petitioners did not argue that any regulatory exception to the time 

limitations applied. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c). To the extent petitioners challenge 

the BIA’s decision not to reopen proceedings sua sponte, we lack jurisdiction. See 

Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[T]his court has jurisdiction 

to review Board decisions denying sua sponte reopening for the limited purpose of 

reviewing the reasoning behind the decisions for legal or constitutional error.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT J.S., Petitioner

v. J.C., Respondent : : : : : : : : : : : No. 152 MAL 2015 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 2nd day of April, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1420

To amend the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act of 1980 to require public availability of an accounting 

of all funds used, or required to be used, for response to a release 

of a hazardous substance or pollutant or contaminant. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 25, 2003

Mr. ANDREWS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL

To amend the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 to require public 

availability of an accounting of all funds used, or required to be used, for response to a release of a hazardous substance or pollutant or contaminant.

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 ‘‘Pollution Account5 ability Act’’. 
2

•HR 1420 IH 

1 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT. 

2 Section 117 of the Comprehensive Environmental Re3 sponse, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 

4 U.S.C. 9617) is amended by adding at the end the fol5 lowing new subsection: 

6 ‘‘(f) ACCOUNTING.—Any person who undertakes, or 

7 who is required to undertake, a response to a release of 

8 a hazardous substance or pollutant or contaminant shall 

9 make available to any person, on request, an accounting 

10 of any funds used, or required by any court or administra11 tive action to be used, for such response.’’.

Æ
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 10.1



                                                          9-19-02


         Texas Addison L.P. hereby grants an option to Ty Comfort (or his
designee) to purchase from Texas Addison 4,170,000 shares of the common stock of
J. L. Halsey Corporation for a price per share equal to the closing price on
9/18/02 (such price was $0.04 per share).



                                            TEXAS ADDISON, L.P.

                                            By:  Texas Barrington, LLC

                                            By:  /s/ David L. Burt
                                                 --------------------------
                                                 Managing Member, President
Editorial Note on Part 315
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 315 appear at 70 FR 72067, Dec. 1, 2005.

§ 315.301 Tenure on appointment from register. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, an eligible appointed from a register for other than temporary or term employment becomes a career-conditional employee.
( b ) An eligible appointed from a register for other than temporary or term employment becomes a career employee when he is excepted from the service requirement for career tenure by § 315.201(c).
§ 2606.303 Request for review of an initial refusal to amend a record. ( a ) ( 1 ) A data subject may submit a written appeal of the initial decision by OGE or an agency denying a request to amend a record in an OGE system of records. ( i ) For records which are filed directly with OGE, the appeal must be submitted to the Director, Office of Government Ethics, Suite 500, 1201 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20005-3917.
( ii ) For records which are filed directly with an agency (including the Federal Election Commission) other than OGE, the appeal must be submitted to the Privacy Act amendments appeals official as specified in the agency's own Privacy Act regulations, or to the respective head of the agency concerned if it does not have Privacy Act regulations.
( 2 ) The words “Privacy Act Appeal” should be included on the envelope and at the top of the letter of the appeal.
( b ) The request for review should contain a brief description of the record(s) involved or copies of the correspondence from OGE or the agency in which the request to amend was denied, and the reasons why the data subject believes that the disputed information should be amended.
### §500. Deflection of current; liability to riparian owners

Whenever complaint shall be made to the Secretary of the Army that by reason of the placing in any navigable waters of the United States of any bridge pier or abutment, the current of such waters has been so deflected from its natural course as to cause by producing caving of banks or otherwise serious damage or danger to property, it shall be his duty to make inquiry, and if it shall be ascertained that the complaint is well founded, he shall cause the owners or persons operating such bridge to repair such damage or prevent such danger to property by such means as he shall indicate and within such time as he may name, and in default thereof the owners or persons operating such bridge shall be liable in any court of competent jurisdiction to the persons injured in a sum double the amount of said injury: Provided, however, That nothing herein contained shall be construed so as to affect any rights of action which may have existed prior to August 11, 1888.

(Aug. 11, 1888, ch. 860, §2, 25 Stat. 423; July 26, 1947, ch. 343, title II, §205(a), 61 Stat 501.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was from the River and Harbor Appropriation Act of 1888.

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

#### Change of Name

Department of War designated Department of the Army and title of Secretary of War changed to Secretary of the Army by section 205(a) of act July 26, 1947, ch. 343, title II, 61 Stat. 501. Section 205(a) of act July 26, 1947, was repealed by section 53 of act Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 641. Section 1 of act Aug. 10, 1956, enacted "Title 10, Armed Forces" which in sections 3010 to 3013 continued Department of the Army under administrative supervision of Secretary of the Army.

#### Transfer of Functions

Functions, powers, and duties of Secretary of the Army and other offices and officers of Department of the Army under sections 491 to 494 and 495 to 498 of this title to extent that they relate generally to location and clearances of bridges and causeways in navigable waters of United States transferred to and vested in Secretary of Transportation by Pub. L. 89–670, §6(g)(6)(B), Oct. 15, 1966, 80 Stat. 931. Pub. L. 97–449 amended sections 491 to 494 and 495 to 498 of this title to reflect transfer made by section 6(g)(6)(B) of Pub. L. 89–670, and repealed section 6(g)(6)(B).
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 2443 Warrenville Road

 Lisle IL 60532

 Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

No. III-06-010 March 16, 2006

CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663 

Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662 

NRC TO DISCUSS 2005 PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

FOR FERMI NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with representatives of Detroit Edison Co.

on Wednesday, March 22, to discuss the agency’s assessment of safety performance for last year at the

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant. The plant is located at Monroe, Mich.

The meeting, which is open to the public, is scheduled to begin at 6 p.m. at the Monroe County

Board of Commissioners’ Chambers, County Office Building, 125 E. Second Street, in Monroe. The

NRC will respond to questions or comments before the close of the meeting

“The NRC continually reviews the performance of the Fermi plant and the nation’s other

commercial nuclear power facilities,” NRC Region III Administrator James Caldwell said. “This

meeting will provide an opportunity for a discussion of our annual assessment of safety performance

with the company and with local officials and residents who live near the plant. Our goal is to explain

the NRC oversight process and make as much information as possible available to the public regarding

our regulation of these facilities.”

A letter sent from the NRC Region III Office to plant officials addresses the performance of the

plant during the period and will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is available on the

NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/ferm_2005q4.pdf.

The NRC’s assessment concluded that the Fermi plant operated safely during the period. The

NRC uses color-coded inspection findings and performance indicators to assess nuclear plant

performance. The colors start with “green” and then increase to “white,” “yellow” or “red,”

commensurate with the safety significance of the issues involved. 

All of the inspection findings and performance indicators for Fermi during 2005 were

determined to be “green.” As a result of this performance, the NRC will conduct the normal, baseline

level of inspections during the upcoming year.

Routine inspections are performed by two NRC Resident Inspectors assigned to the plant and

by inspection specialists from the Region III Office in Lisle, Ill., and the agency’s headquarters in

Rockville, Md. Among the areas of plant operations to be inspected this year by NRC specialists are

radiological access, monitoring of effluents and access control to radiologically significant areas.
Current performance information for Fermi is available on the NRC’s web site at: 

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/FERM2/ferm2_chart.html.

# # #
### §535i. Reservation of right to alter or repeal

The right to alter, amend, or repeal this subchapter is expressly reserved.

(Pub. L. 92–434, §12, Sept. 26, 1972, 86 Stat. 733.)
§ 2429.23 Extension; waiver. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, and notwithstanding § 2429.21(b) of this subchapter, the Authority or General Counsel, or their designated representatives, as appropriate, may extend any time limit provided in this subchapter for good cause shown, and shall notify the parties of any such extension. Requests for extensions of time shall be in writing and received by the appropriate official not later than five (5) days before the established time limit for filing, shall state the position of the other parties on the request for extension, and shall be served on the other parties.
( b ) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, the Authority or General Counsel, or their designated representatives, as appropriate, may waive any expired time limit in this subchapter in extraordinary circumstances. Request for a waiver of time limits shall state the position of the other parties and shall be served on the other parties.
( c ) The time limits established in this subchapter may not be extended or waived in any manner other than that described in this subchapter.
( d ) Time limits established in 5 U.S.C. 7105(f), 7117(c)(2) and 7122(b) may not be extended or waived under this section.
[45 FR 3516, Jan. 17, 1980, as amended at 48 FR 40194, Sept. 6, 1983; 51 FR 45752, Dec. 22, 1986]
NRC NEWS U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

 Office of Public Affairs, Region I

 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pa.

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

No. I-05-039 July 7, 2005

Contact: Diane Screnci, 610/337-5330 E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov

Neil Sheehan, 610/337-5331

NRC BEGINS SPECIAL INSPECTION AT JAMES A. FITZPATRICK NUCLEAR PLANT

 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has initiated a special inspection at the James A.

FitzPatrick nuclear power plant in response to the discovery of cracking in the facility’s torus, or

pressure suppression chamber, and a shutdown cooling line. Members of the three-person team arrived

this afternoon at the Scriba, N.Y., plant, which is operated by Entergy.

 Among the objectives of the special inspection in the short term will be to review the

adequacy of Entergy’s initial evaluations of the cause, the company’s assessment of whether any

additional cracking exists and its repair work prior to the plant returning to service. Subsequently, the

inspectors will more closely examine Entergy’s corrective actions, including its investigation into the

defects, its root-cause evaluation and any potential generic safety concerns.

 “We expect Entergy to undertake a vigorous and thorough review of these issues,” NRC

Region I Administrator Samuel J. Collins said. “The purpose of this special inspection is to help

ensure these problems are fully understood and addressed so that the plant’s safety margins are

preserved.”

 The plant’s torus is a large, doughnut-shaped structure that is partially filled with water

(identified in graphic below as the pressure suppression chamber). It is located at the base of the

reactor building. During a severe event at the facility, steam generated by the reactor would be

deposited into the chamber to help reduce heat and pressure levels and cool down the plant.

 On June 27, a crack measuring about 4.6 inches in length was found on the torus. Because it

represented a potential loss of the plant’s containment mechanisms during an emergency, the reactor

was subsequently shut down. It remains out of service while reviews and repairs are undertaken.

 Entergy also identified a crack on a shutdown cooling line on July 4. This crack, measuring

about 6.5 inches in length, is of concern because a failure of the line could complicate the cooling of

the plant.

 Once the inspection is completed, the special inspection team will document its findings and

conclusions in a report that will be issued within 45 days of an exit meeting with plant managers.
-2-

The above graphic shows a cross-section of a pressure suppression chamber, also known

as a torus. The cross-section measures 29.6 feet wide. The chamber typically holds

790,000 gallons of water.

 ###
NRC NEWS U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 Office of Public Affairs Region IV 

 611 Ryan Plaza Drive - Suite 400

 Arlington, TX 76011-4005

No. IV-05-024 May 31, 2005

Contact: Victor Dricks E-Mail: opa4@nrc.gov

Phone: 817-860-8128

NRC TO DISCUSS PERFORMANCE

FOR DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR PLANT

Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with representatives of Pacific Gas &

Electric Co. on June 7 to discuss the results of the agency’s assessment of safety performance at

the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant. The facility is located in San Luis Obispo, Calif.

The meeting is scheduled to begin at 6:30 p.m. at the Embassy Suites Hotel, 333

Madonna Road, San Luis Obispo. Before the session is adjourned, NRC staff will be available to

answer questions from the public on the plant’s safety performance, as well as the agency’s role

in ensuring safe operation of the facility.

 “This meeting gives us a chance to discuss our annual safety assessment with the

company, local officials and residents who live near Diablo Canyon,” said Region IV

Administrator Bruce S. Mallett. “We know community interest in Diablo Canyon is strong, and

we encourage members of the community to attend our meeting. The NRC staff will address any

questions the public may have and make available the latest information about the plant.”

Overall, Diablo Canyon operated safely during 2004. The NRC uses color-coded

inspection findings and performance indicators to assess nuclear plant performance. The colors

start with “green” and increase to “white,” “yellow,” and “red,” according to the safety

significance of the issues involved. 

All of the plant’s inspection findings and performance indicators were rated “green”

during 2004. However, there were multiple findings of very low safety significance indicating

some issues remain with the site’s problem identification and resolution and corrective action

programs. The NRC will focus attention on these areas through its baseline inspection program

during 2005. Baseline inspections are performed by the NRC Resident Inspectors assigned to the

plant and by inspection specialists from the Region IV office and the agency’s headquarters in

Rockville, Md. 
A letter sent from the NRC Region IV Office in Arlington, Texas, to plant officials will

serve as the basis for the meeting. It is available on the NRC web site at: 

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/diab_2004q4.pdf .

Current information for Diablo Canyon Unit 1 is available on the NRC web site at:

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/DIAB1/diab1_chart.html .

Information for Unit 2 is available at:

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/DIAB2/diab2_chart.html .

###
### SUBCHAPTER IV—OIL POLLUTION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
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 17, 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”), the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (“IEEE”) 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: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Piscataway, NJ. The nature and scope of IEEE's standards development activities are: To develop consensus standards through an open process that brings diverse parts of the electrical engineering industry together. Through its portfolio of more than 870 completed standards and over 400 in development, IEEE promotes the electrical engineering process by creating, developing, integrating, sharing and applying knowledge about electro- and information technologies and sciences. 

Dorothy B. Fountain, 

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division. 

[FR Doc. 04-24561 Filed 11-2-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
IN THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0047

TAMARA CHAMBERLAIN,

Defendant and Appellant,

v.

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee.

ORDER 

Upon consideration of Defendant and Appellant’s Motion For Extension Of 

Time, and with good cause shown, Defendant and Appellant Tamera Chamberlain

is hereby granted an extension of time until February 9, 2024, in which to prepare, 

file and serve Defendant and Appellant’s opening brief.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 22 2023

12/22/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0047
89–008

107TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 107–209

WAIVING A REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT

TO THE SAME DAY CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE

SEPTEMBER 21 (legislative day of SEPTEMBER 20), 2001.—Referred to the House

Calendar and ordered to be printed

Mr. REYNOLDS, from the Committee on Rules,

submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. Res. 242]

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House

Resolution 242, by a non-record vote, report the same to the House

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted.

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII (requiring a twothirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from

the Rules Committee) against certain resolutions reported from the

Rules Committee. The rule applies the waiver to any special rule

reported on the legislative day of Friday, September 21, 2001, providing for consideration or disposition of a bill to preserve the continued viability of the United States air transportation system.

Æ