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).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LUIS ARTURO PARRA CAMACHO,

a.k.a. Luis Camacho Parra,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-74249

Agency No. A095-660-807

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 10, 2011** 

Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. 

Luis Arturo Parra Camacho, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal

from an immigration judge’s order pretermitting his application for cancellation of

removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo

FILED

JAN 24 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-74249

questions of law, Mercado-Zazueta v. Holder, 580 F.3d 1102, 1104 (9th Cir.

2009), and we grant the petition for review. 

The BIA decided this case without the benefit of our decision in MercadoZazueta v. Holder, in which we held that for purposes of satisfying the five years

of lawful permanent residence required under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(1), a parent’s

status as a lawful permanent resident is imputed to the unemancipated minor

children residing with that parent. 580 F.3d at 1113. Accordingly, we grant the

petition for review and remand to the BIA for further proceedings. See INS v.

Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16 (2002) (per curiam). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
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-05-028 July 25, 2005

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

Phone: 817-860-8128

NRC PROPOSES $6,000 FINE

FOR HIGH MOUNTAIN INSPECTION SERVICE

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed a fine of $6,000 against

High Mountain Inspection Service, Inc. of Mills, Wyoming, for violating NRC requirements.

In a letter to the company, Bruce S. Mallet, Administrator of the NRC’s Region IV office

in Arlington, Texas, said that as a result of an NRC inspection, the agency determined that the

company violated NRC training requirements for the possession and use of radioactive materials. 

The violation involved the company’s use of an individual who had not been fully trained

to perform the role of a radiographer’s assistant at a refinery in Cheyenne, Wyo., where the

company was conducting radiography services in November 2004. Additionally, the company

failed to provide the individual with radiation monitoring equipment, as required.

Radiography is a non-destructive testing method which uses a sealed radiation source to

make x-ray like images of heavy metal objects like pumps, valves, and pipes.

“To assure radiation safety at temporary job sites, the NRC places a great deal of

importance on having a second, trained individual who can provide immediate assistance should

a radiographer become incapacitated during radiography operations,” Mallet said. “It is also

important that all radiography personnel be equipped with radiation monitoring equipment,

including an alarm rate meter to give warning of abnormal conditions.”

NRC staff discussed the apparent violation, its significance, the root cause and the

company’s corrective actions during an enforcement conference with High Mountain officials on

May 31. The company said it has taken steps to prevent recurrence.

The NRC has classified the violation at Severity Level III, which carries a $6,000 civil

penalty. The agency has a four-level severity scale in which Severity Level I is the most serious. 
-2-

The company has 30 days to either pay the proposed fine or challenge it. The NRC fined High

Mountain $12,000 in April 2004 for two violations of NRC security and safety requirements.

The NRC’s letter, its enclosures, and the company’s response will be made available to

interested members of the public through the agency’s public electronic reading room at:

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html . Help in accessing these documents is available

from the NRC Public Document Room at 1-800-397-4209.

###
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**Chief Financial Officer**

 

I, John Lamson, Chief Financial Officer, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A-1 of FIRST ADVANTAGE CORPORATION; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have: 

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; 

 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c) Disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting. 

 

 

August 4, 2005
### **CHAPTER 219—ASHANTI ALERT COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK**

Sec.
21901.
Definitions.
21902.
Ashanti Alert communications network.
21903.
Ashanti Alert Coordinator.
21904.
Minimum standards for issuance and dissemination of alerts through Ashanti Alert communications network.
21905.
Voluntary participation.
21906.
Training and educational programs.
21907.
Authorization of appropriations.
§ 582.103 Exclusions. In determining the amount of pay subject to garnishment under this part, there shall be excluded amounts which: ( a ) Are owed by the employee-obligor to the United States;
( b ) Are required by law to be deducted from the employee-obligor's pay, including, but not limited to amounts deducted in compliance with the Federal Insurance and Contributions Act (FICA), including amounts deducted for Medicare and for Old Age, Survivor, and Disability Insurance (OASDI);
( c ) Are properly withheld for Federal, State, or local income tax purposes, if the withholding of the amounts is authorized or required by law and if amounts withheld are not greater than would be the case if the employee-obligor claimed all dependents to which the employee-obligor were entitled. The withholding of additional amounts pursuant to section 3402(i) of title 26 of the United States Code may be permitted only when the employee-obligor presents evidence of a tax obligation which supports the additional withholding;
( d ) Are deducted as health insurance premiums;
( e ) Are deducted as normal retirement contributions, not including amounts deducted for supplementary coverage. For purposes of this section, all amounts contributed under sections 8351 and 8432(a) of title 5 of the United States Code to the Thrift Savings Fund are deemed to be normal retirement contributions. Except as provided in this paragraph, amounts voluntarily contributed toward additional retirement benefits are considered to be supplementary;
( f ) Are deducted as normal life insurance premiums from salary or other remuneration for employment, not including amounts deducted for supplementary coverage. Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance premiums for “Basic Life” coverage are considered to be normal life insurance premiums; all optional Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance premiums and any life insurance premiums paid for by allotment are considered to be supplementary.
( g ) Amounts withheld in compliance with legal process based on child support and/or alimony indebtedness are not exclusions.
NRC NEWS

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION II

61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta GA 30303

Web Site: www.nrc.gov/OPA

No. II-01-030 July 9, 2001 

 

CONTACT: Ken Clark (404)562-4416/e-mail: kmc2@nrc.gov

Roger D. Hannah (404)562-4417/e-mail: rdh1@nrc.gov

NRC TO MEET WITH SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OFFICIALS TO DISCUSS

SAFETY PERFORMANCE AT VOGTLE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with Southern Nuclear Operating

Company officials on Tuesday, July 17, to discuss the results of NRC's annual assessment of safety

performance at the Vogtle nuclear power plant.

The meeting will be held at 3:00 p.m. in the Administration Building Auditorium at the plant

site near Waynesboro, Georgia. The public is invited to observe the meeting. NRC officials will be

available after the meeting to answer questions. The NRC will hold a second meeting with state and

local government officials after the first meeting. That second meeting is also open to the public.

A letter sent from NRC Region II to Southern Nuclear, which addresses plant safety

performance during the previous year and forms the basis of the meeting discussion, is available from

the Region II Office of Public Affairs or on the NRC web site at www.nrc.gov/OPA/ppr. Current

information for the plant is available at

www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/VOG1/vog1_chart.html and

www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/VOG2/vog2_chart.html .

###
### §10408. Administrative provisions

#### (a) In general

A State or specially qualified unit that receives funds under this subchapter shall—

(1) establish a trust fund in which the government will deposit all payments received under this subchapter;

(2) use amounts in the trust fund (including interest) during the period specified in section 10406(b)(1) of this title and any extension of that period under section 10406(b)(2) of this title;

(3) designate an official of the State or specially qualified unit to submit reports as the Attorney General reasonably requires, in addition to the annual reports required under this subchapter; and

(4) spend the funds only for the purpose of strengthening the juvenile justice system.

#### (b) Chapter provisions

Except as otherwise provided, the administrative provisions of subchapter VII shall apply to this subchapter and for purposes of this section any reference in such provisions to this chapter shall be deemed to include a reference to this subchapter.

(Pub. L. 90–351, title I, §1807, as added Pub. L. 107–273, div. C, title II, §12102(a), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1866.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 3796ee–7 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.
###### Editorial Note on Part 352

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 352 appear at 69 FR 2050, Jan. 13, 2004.

#### § 352.501 Purpose.

This subpart governs reinstatement authorized by sections 233(d) and 625(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2193(d) and 22 U.S.C. 235(b)).

[36 FR 13897, July 28, 1971]
#### § 297.204 Access by the representative of the data subject.

A record may be disclosed to a representative of the individual to whom the record pertains after the system manager receives written authorization from the individual who is the subject of the record.
# Appendix 1.1

Guide to Locating 40 CFR § 51.308 RequirementsAppendix 1.1 - Guide to Locating 40 CFR § 51.308 Re quirements

§ 51.308(c) Regional Planning Chapter 3 of this SIP describes Kansas’ ongoing par ticipation in the regional planning process. § 51.308(d)(1) Reasonable Progress Goals Kansas does not contain any Class I areas. However , Kansas consulted with other states in developing their reasonable progress goals as ou tlined in Chapter 11. § 51.308(d)(2) Calculations of baseline and natural visibility conditions Kansas does not contain any Class I areas. A gener al discussion of visibility can be found in Chapter 5. § 51.308(d)(3) Long-term strategy for regional haze States must develop a long-term strategy for reduci ng regional haze and visibility impairment in the Class I areas. Kansas’ long-term strategy is laid out in Chapter 10. § 51.308(d)(4) Monitoring strategy and other implem entation plan requirements States must have a monitoring strategy for measurin g and reporting on regional haze visibility impairment. Kansas’ monitoring strategy is detailed in Chapter 6. § 51.308(e) BART requirements for regional haze vis ibility impairment Regional haze SIPs must include BART emissions limi ts and schedules of compliance for affected sources. All information on Kansas’ BART analysis is found in Chapter 9. § 51.308(f) Requirements for comprehensive periodic revisions of implementation plans States must commit to periodic revisions of the reg ional haze SIP to ensure that the requirements are being met. Kansas’ plan for these periodic revisions is laid out in Chapter 12. § 51.308(g) Requirements for periodic reports descr ibing progress towards reasonable progress goals Kansas’ plan for periodic reports describing the vi sibility improvement towards meeting the reasonable progress goal is described in Chapte r 12. § 51.308(h) Determination of the adequacy of the ex isting implementation plan Each state is required to submit reports on the ade quacy of the existing implementation plan for improving visibility; this requirement is covered in Chapter 13. § 51.308(i) State and Federal Land Manager Coordina tion Kansas has coordinated with Federal Land Managers ( FLMs) through participation in the regional planning process; this is documented in Ch apter 3. Kansas also consulted with the FLMs individually and during the required comme nt period. This requirement is addressed in Chapter 4, with FLM comments and Kansa s’ responses provided in Appendix 4.1.
#### Louis Weiss, Respondent, v. Morris Shamos, Appellant.

Order unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Cohn, Yan Yoorhis and Shientag, JJ.
#### § 4.65 Verification of nationality and tonnage.

The nationality and tonnage of a vessel shall be verified by examination of its marine document. If such examination discloses that insufficient tonnage tax was collected on entry of the vessel, no clearance shall be granted until the deficiency is paid.
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**
MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 18

- 00768

- CV
Mark HOMER a/k/a Doc’ s Space Center, Appellant

v.
Ernesto MARTINEZ , Appellee From the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 380903A Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Irene Rios, Justice
Delivered and Filed: December 5, 2018
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION In this appeal, the clerk’s record was due on October 29 , 2018. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 35.1

. A few days later, the Bexar County District Clerk notified this court that Appellant Mark Homer a/k/a Doc’s Space Center had not paid the clerk’s fee for preparing the record and Appellant is not
entitled to a free clerk’s record.
On November 15 , 2018 , we ordered Appellant to file written proof with this court by
November 26, 2018, that either (1) the clerk’s fee has been paid or arrangements have been made to pay the clerk’s fee, or (2) Appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the clerk’s fee. We04

- 18

- 00768

- CV

- 2

- warned Appellant that if he failed to respond as ordered, this appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.3(b). To date, Appellant has not filed any response with this court

. Therefore, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See id. R. 37.3(b), 42.3(b), (c).
PER CURIAM
###### Editorial Note on Part 315

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 315 appear at 70 FR 72067, Dec. 1, 2005.

#### § 315.902 Definitions.

In this subpart *supervisory position* and *managerial position* have the meaning given them by the General Schedule Supervisory Guide.

[60 FR 53505, Oct. 16, 1995]
### §702j–2. White River Levee District; rights-of-way; drainage facilities; flowage rights; acquisition by local authorities; protection of United States from liability for damages

The Chief of Engineers, under the supervision of the Secretary of the Army, shall at the expense of the United States Government construct a system of levees substantially in accordance with general plan shown on map designated as sheet numbered 1 entitled "Tributary Levee Location Survey—White River Levee District—Proposed Levee Location" accompanying report dated April 2, 1925, and filed in office of First and Second Mississippi River Commission Districts, Memphis, Tennessee. The Chief of Engineers shall have the right to alter, change, or modify said plan as to the grades and levee sections: Provided, however, That no work shall be commenced on the above-mentioned project until the State, levee boards, or other responsible local interests have given assurances satisfactory to the Secretary of the Army that they will (a) provide without cost to the United States all rights-of-way necessary for the construction of said project; (b) provide drainage facilities made necessary by construction of levees; (c) acquire and provide without cost to the United States all flowage and storage rights and easements over, upon, and across the lands and properties within the protected area in the event it becomes necessary in the judgment and discretion of the Secretary of the Army or the Chief of Engineers to use said area, or any part thereof, for an emergency reservoir; (d) hold and save the United States free from liability for damages on account of the use of said area for reservoir purposes during said emergency.

(June 15, 1936, ch. 548, §5, 49 Stat. 1509; July 26, 1947, ch. 343, title II, §205(a), 61 Stat. 501.)

#### **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.
### §578b. Disposition of projects

#### (a) In general

In carrying out a disposition study for a project of the Corps of Engineers, or a separable element of such a project, including a disposition study under section 549a of this title, the Secretary shall consider modifications that would improve the overall quality of the environment in the public interest, including removal of the project or separable element of a project.

#### (b) Disposition study transparency

The Secretary shall carry out disposition studies described in subsection (a) in a transparent manner, including by—

(1) providing opportunities for public input; and

(2) publishing the final disposition studies.

#### (c) Removal of infrastructure

For disposition studies described in subsection (a) in which the Secretary determines that a Federal interest no longer exists, and makes a recommendation of removal of the project or separable element of a project, the Secretary is authorized, using existing authorities, to pursue removal of the project or separable element of a project in partnership with other Federal agencies and non-Federal entities with appropriate capabilities to undertake infrastructure removal.

(Pub. L. 115–270, title I, §1168, Oct. 23, 2018, 132 Stat. 3798.)

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

#### "Secretary" Defined

Secretary means the Secretary of the Army, see section 102 of Pub. L. 115–270, set out as a note under section 2201 of this title.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

255 

CA 15-00588 

PRESENT: PERADOTTO, J.P., LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, CURRAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF MAUREEN 

BOSCO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OF CENTRAL NEW YORK 

PSYCHIATRIC CENTER, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

FOR AN ORDER AUTHORIZING THE INVOLUNTARY TREATMENT 

OF AWET G., A PATIENT AT CENTRAL NEW YORK 

PSYCHIATRIC CENTER, CONSECUTIVE NO. 595912,

RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

EMMETT J. CREAHAN, DIRECTOR, MENTAL HYGIENE LEGAL SERVICE, UTICA

(MICHAEL H. MCCORMICK OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (KATHLEEN M. TREASURE

OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County (David

A. Murad, J.), entered March 17, 2015. The order granted the petition

seeking authorization to administer medication to respondent over his

objection.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the petition is

dismissed. 

Memorandum: Respondent appeals from an order granting the

petition seeking authorization to administer medication to respondent

over his objection. Respondent contends that the order authorizing

medication over objection was improperly granted pursuant to 14 NYCRR

527.8 inasmuch as he had been voluntarily taking his medications prior

to the hearing. We agree that Supreme Court erred in granting the

order inasmuch as the record establishes that respondent withdrew his

objection to the treatment approximately two months before the

petition was filed (see 14 NYCRR 527.8 [c] [6]; see also 14 NYCRR

527.8 [c] [5] [ii] [b] [3]; see generally Matter of Jay S. [Barber],

118 AD3d 803, 805). 

Frances E. Cafarell

Entered: March 25, 2016

Clerk of the Court