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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

ROBERT BOLOTAULO FRANCISCO,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 10-73512

Agency No. A070-086-663

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 8, 2012** 

Before: ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Robert Bolotaulo Francisco, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions

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

motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo due

FILED

AUG 14 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-73512

process claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). 

We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. 

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Francisco’s motion to

reopen as untimely because the motion was filed more than thirteen years after the

final order of removal and did not qualify for an exception to the 90-day filing

limitation. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)-(3).

Francisco’s contention that the BIA violated due process by denying his

motion to reopen fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)

(requiring a showing of error to prevail on a due process claim). 

To the extent Francisco contends that the BIA should have invoked its

authority to reopen his proceedings sua sponte, we lack jurisdiction to review his

contention. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Francisco’s unexhausted contention that his

status as a derivative beneficiary of an earlier-filed visa petition entitles him to

reopening. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (this court

lacks jurisdiction over contentions not raised before the BIA).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gary Coleman, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 201]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Margaret L. Clancy, J.), rendered September 24, 2004, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of two counts of sodomy in the second degree, four counts of sexual abuse in the second degree and two counts of endangering the welfare of a child, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 21⁄3 to 7 years on the sodomy convictions and one year on each of the other convictions, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. There *771is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning credibility, including its evaluation of inconsistencies in testimony.

Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims are unreviewable on direct appeal because they involve matters outside the record concerning counsel’s choice of cross-examination strategy *(see People v Rivera,*71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]; *People v Love,*57 NY2d 998 [1982]). On the existing record, to the extent it permits review, we find that defendant received effective assistance under the state and federal standards *(see People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; *see also Strickland v Washington,*466 US 668 [1984]). Even if we were to find that counsel should have elicited the fact that the victims and/or their families had taken steps in contemplation of civil litigation arising out of their allegations against defendant, we would find that counsel’s failure to raise this issue could not have affected the outcome of the case or deprived defendant of a fair trial *(see People v Caban,*5 NY3d 143 [2005]; *People v Hobot,*84 NY2d 1021, 1024 [1995]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Buckley, P.J., Saxe, Williams, Sweeny and Malone, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-1269

WILLIAM LEE GRANT, II,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:18-cv-00369-REP)

Submitted: August 20, 2019 Decided: August 22, 2019

Before FLOYD and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Lee Grant, II, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

William Lee Grant, II, appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint 

as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012) and denying his motion to amend his 

complaint. We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous. 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. Grant v. 

U.S. Dep’t of Defense, No. 3:18-cv-00369-REP (E.D. Va. Mar. 4, 2019). We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in 

the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
§ 303.12 Trimmings of household textile articles. ( a ) Pursuant to section 12 of the Act, trimmings incorporated in articles of wearing apparel and other household textile articles are exempt from the Act and regulations, except for decorative trim, decorative patterns and designs, and elastic materials in findings exceeding the surface area thresholds described in paragraphs (a)(3) and (b) of this section. Trimmings may, among other forms of trim, include: ( 1 ) Rickrack, tape, belting, binding, braid, labels (either required or non-required), collars, cuffs, wrist bands, leg bands, waist bands, gussets, gores, welts, and findings, including superimposed garters in hosiery, and elastic materials and threads inserted in or added to the basic product or garment in minor proportion for holding, reinforcing or similar structural purposes;
( 2 ) Decorative trim, whether applied by embroidery, overlay, applique, or attachment; and
( 3 ) Decorative patterns or designs which are an integral part of the fabric out of which the household textile article is made. *Provided,* that such decorative trim or decorative pattern or design, as specified in paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) of this section, does not exceed 15 percent of the surface area of the household textile article. If no representation is made as to the fiber content of the decorative trim or decoration, as provided for in paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) of this section, and the fiber content of the decorative trim or decoration differs from the fiber content designation of the basic fabric, the fiber content designation of the basic fabric shall be followed by the statement “exclusive of decoration.”
( b ) The term *findings* may also include elastic material which constitutes a part of the basic fabric or material out of which the household textile article is made, where such elastic material does not exceed 20 percent of the surface area of the household textile article: *Provided,* That the required information as to fiber content of products subject to this paragraph is followed by the statement “exclusive of elastic.”
[24 FR 4480, June 2, 1959, as amended at 79 FR 18770, Apr. 4, 2014]
NO. 12-08-00041-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

§ APPEAL FROM THE 

IN THE INTEREST OF T.W.T., § COUNTY COURT AT LAW OF

A MINOR CHILD

§ CHEROKEE COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

This appeal is being dismissed for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b).

Appellants perfected her appeal on January 22, 2008. Thereafter, the reporter’s record was filed on

March 26, 2008, making Appellant’s brief due on or before April 25, 2008. When Appellant failed

to file her brief within the required time, this court notified her on April 30, 2008 that the brief was

past due and warned that if no motion for extension of time to file the brief was received by May 12,

2008, the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution under Texas Rule of Appellate

Procedure 42.3(b). The notice further informed Appellant that themotion for extension of time must

contain a reasonable explanation for her failure to file the brief and a showing that Appellee had not

suffered material injury thereby.

To date, Appellant has neither complied with or otherwise responded to this court’s April 30,

2008 notice. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P.

38.8(a)(1), 42.3.(b).

Opinion delivered May 14, 2008.

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

(PUBLISH)
#### § 318.9 Sunset.

If new legislation is enacted establishing requirements for notification in the case of a breach of security that apply to entities covered by this part, the provisions of this part shall not apply to breaches of security discovered on or after the effective date of regulations implementing such legislation.
#### Kathleen Edwards, Respondent, v. Buffalo Transit Company, Inc., Appellant. Harry Edwards, Respondent, v. Buffalo Transit Company, Inc., Appellant.

‘Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concur. (Appeal from a judgment for plaintiffs in a bus line negligence action. The order denied a motion for a new trial.) Present — McCurn, P. J., Vaughan, Kimball, Wheeler and Van Duser, JJ.
#### Gabriel Salant and Others, Appellants, v. Boris Kaschuck, Respondent.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present—Clarke, P. J., McLaughlin, Scott, Dowling and Smith, JJ.
§ 906.7 Disqualification of appellate officer. ( a ) An appellate officer shall disqualify himself or herself if the appellate officer has a perceived or actual conflict of interest, a perceived or actual prejudice or bias, for other ethical reasons, or based on principles found in the American Bar Association Model Code of Judicial Conduct for Administrative Law Judges.
( b ) Any party may request an appellate officer, at any time before the filing of the appellate officer's decision, to withdraw on the ground of personal bias or disqualification, by filing a written motion with the appellate officer setting forth in detail the matters alleged to constitute grounds for disqualification.
( c ) The appellate officer, orally or in writing, shall grant or deny the motion based on the American Bar Association Model Code of Judicial Conduct for Federal Administrative Law Judges and other applicable law or policy. If the motion is granted, the appellate officer will disqualify himself or herself and withdraw from the proceeding. If the motion is denied, the appellate officer will state the grounds for his or her ruling and proceed with his or her review.
#### § 609.4 Timing of electronic credit monitoring notices.

The notice required in § 609.3(a) must be provided within 48 hours of any material additions or modifications to a consumer's file.
No: III-14-039 November 10, 2014

CONTACT: Viktoria Mitlyng, 630-829-9662

 Prema Chandrathil, 630-829-9663

NRC Proposes $7,000 Fine To A Michigan Cardiology Company

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed a $7,000 civil penalty to the Bradley D. 

Bastow cardiology practice for failing to meet the terms of the NRC’s Confirmatory Order. The Order 

was issued for violations in the company’s safety practices in handling nuclear material. The cardiology 

practice, based in South Haven, Mich., uses radioactive material for diagnostic medical tests.

The Order, issued Sept. 3, 2013, documented the company’s commitment to correct the 

weaknesses in radiation safety practices identified during an NRC special inspection and an 

investigation looking into how the practice handled radioactive material.

In 2014, the NRC conducted independent inspections to assess the implementation of the 

commitments outlined in the Order and concluded the Bastow practice failed to complete some of the 

required corrective actions. Specifically, the company failed to repair an inoperable radiation 

measurement device and Dr. Bradley Bastow failed to observe the work of a Radiation Safety Officer 

outside of the Bastow practice. In addition, the company failed to adhere to Order deadlines for 

providing written reports.

“Even though these violations did not result in harm to members of the public, our action 

underscores the expectation that NRC license holders will adhere to NRC requirements to make sure 

nuclear material is used in a manner that maintains public safety,” said NRC Region III Administrator 

Cynthia D. Pederson. 

The Bastow practice is required to provide the NRC with a written response on how the 

company intends to resolve the nuclear safety problems. The NRC will conduct an independent review 

to make sure these corrective actions are effective and sustainable.

The company can contest the imposition of the civil penalty within 30 days of the Notice of 

Violation issuance date. 

The NRC’s Notice of Violation will be available on the NRC's website.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3617 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3617

To amend the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act to require States 
receiving funds under section 106 of such Act to have in effect a State 
 law providing for a criminal penalty on a person who has knowledge of 
child abuse or neglect, but fails to report such abuse or neglect to a 
         law enforcement official or child protective services.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 8, 2011

    Ms. Clarke of New York introduced the following bill; which was 
        referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act to require States 
receiving funds under section 106 of such Act to have in effect a State 
 law providing for a criminal penalty on a person who has knowledge of 
child abuse or neglect, but fails to report such abuse or neglect to a 
         law enforcement official or child protective services.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``See Something, Say Something Act''.

SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT FOR STATES RECEIVING GRANTS FOR CHILD ABUSE AND 
              NEGLECT PREVENTION AND TREATMENT PROGRAMS.

    (a) In General.--Section 106(b)(2) of the Child Abuse Prevention 
and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C. 5106a(b)(2)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (F), by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (2) in subparagraph (G), by striking the period at the end 
        and inserting ``; and''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(H) an assurance in the form of a certification 
                by the Governor of the State that the State has in 
                effect and is enforcing a State law providing for a 
                criminal penalty on any person 18 years of age or older 
                who fails to report to a State or local law enforcement 
                official or child protective services that the person 
                has knowledge of child abuse or neglect that occurred 
                in the State.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect on December 31, 2013.
                                 <all>
```
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

 Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

 Washington, DC 20555-001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov 

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

No. 04-022 February 12, 2004

NRC OFFERS OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED

SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL STORAGE FACILITY AT HUMBOLDT BAY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has accepted for detailed technical review an

application from Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) for a license to possess spent

nuclear fuel in an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI). The ISFSI would be

located on the site of the former Humboldt Bay nuclear power plant in Humboldt County,

California. NRC is offering an opportunity for interested persons to request a hearing. 

PG&E submitted the application on December 15, 2003. If granted, the license would

authorize the company to store spent fuel in the ISFSI for 20 years. The Humboldt Bay nuclear

plant has been shut down since 1976. Spent fuel has been stored in a water pool inside the

reactor refueling building since that time. Under PG&E’s proposal, the used fuel would be

moved into a dry storage cask system that the company would construct and operate at the site.

The NRC will conduct a comprehensive review of the application and conduct safety and 

environmental evaluations to determine if it would meet requirements of the agency’s

regulations, would not be inimical to the common defense and security, and would not constitute

an unreasonable risk to public health and safety.

Within 30 days from the publication of a Federal Register notice on this subject on

February 11, any person whose interest may be affected by the ISFSI and who wishes to

participate as a party in the proceeding may file a written request for a hearing on the license

application and a request to participate in the proceeding. The Federal Register notice gives

details on specific information that must be included in the request, which should be sent to the

Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555,

Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. Other copies should be sent to the addresses

set out in the Federal Register notice. If petitions are filed during the last 10 days of the 30-day

notice period, petitioners are asked to notify E. William Brach, Director, Spent Fuel Project

Office, NRC Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, by telephone at 800-368-5642,

extension 415-8500.

The application is available for review on the NRC’s Agencywide Document Access and

Management System (ADAMS) at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/web-based.html . 

Help in using ADAMS is available from the NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR) by calling
-2-

301-415-4737 or 1-800-397-4209. A copy is also available for viewing at the Public Document

Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD.

###
H. R. 368 

One Hundred Twelfth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, 

the fifth day of January, two thousand and eleven 

An Act 

To amend title 28, United States Code, to clarify and improve certain provisions 

relating to the removal of litigation against Federal officers or agencies to Federal 

courts, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Removal Clarification Act of 

2011’’. 

SEC. 2. REMOVAL OF CERTAIN LITIGATION TO FEDERAL COURTS. 

(a) CLARIFICATION OF INCLUSION OF CERTAIN TYPES OF PROCEEDINGS.—Section 1442 of title 28, United States Code, is 

amended— 

(1) in subsection (a), in the matter preceding paragraph 

(1)— 

(A) by inserting ‘‘that is’’ after ‘‘or criminal prosecution’’; 

(B) by inserting ‘‘and that is’’ after ‘‘in a State court’’; 

and 

(C) by inserting ‘‘or directed to’’ after ‘‘against’’; and 

(2) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(c) As used in subsection (a), the terms ‘civil action’ and 

‘criminal prosecution’ include any proceeding (whether or not 

ancillary to another proceeding) to the extent that in such proceeding a judicial order, including a subpoena for testimony or 

documents, is sought or issued. If removal is sought for a proceeding 

described in the previous sentence, and there is no other basis 

for removal, only that proceeding may be removed to the district 

court.’’. 

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 1442(a) of title 28, 

United States Code, is amended— 

(1) in paragraph (1)— 

(A) by striking ‘‘capacity for’’ and inserting ‘‘capacity, 

for or relating to’’; and 

(B) by striking ‘‘sued’’; and 

(2) in each of paragraphs (3) and (4), by inserting ‘‘or 

relating to’’ after ‘‘for’’. 

(c) APPLICATION OF TIMING REQUIREMENT.—Section 1446 of 

title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 

the following: 

‘‘(g) Where the civil action or criminal prosecution that is removable under section 1442(a) is a proceeding in which a judicial 

order for testimony or documents is sought or issued or sought 
H. R. 368—2 

to be enforced, the 30-day requirement of subsections (b) and (c) 

is satisfied if the person or entity desiring to remove the proceeding 

files the notice of removal not later than 30 days after receiving, 

through service, notice of any such proceeding.’’. 

(d) REVIEWABILITY ON APPEAL.—Section 1447(d) of title 28, 

United States Code, is amended by inserting ‘‘1442 or’’ before 

‘‘1443’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Henry Bryan, Appellant.

Order unanimously affirmed. No opinion. Present — Peek, P. J., Dore, Callahan, Breitel and Bastow, JJ.
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Region III

2443 Warrenville Road

Lisle IL 60532

Site: www.nrc.gov

Blog: http://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov

No. III-11-035

Contact: Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662

 Prema Chandrathil (630) 829-9663

November 16, 20111

E-Mail: OPA3.RegionIII@nrc.gov 

NRC RESPONDS TO ALERT AT DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION

Nuclear Regulatory Commission inspectors responded this morning to a brief electrical 

fire-related Alert at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station southeast of Toledo, Ohio.

The alert was declared at 2:22 a.m. EST due to a small fire on an electrical breaker 

caused by a water leak from an overhead valve. The fire was put out within minutes. The Alert 

was terminated at 4:43 a.m.

The single-reactor Davis-Besse facility in Oak Harbor, operated by FirstEnergy Nuclear 

Operating Co., was shut down at the time the fire occurred. There was no impact to the public 

health and safety, or to the environment. 

The NRC resident inspectors assigned to the plant have been following the situation at 

the facility in consultation with the staff in the Region III office located in Lisle, Ill. 

The water leak that caused the fire has been fixed. The licensee is investigating the causes 

of the event. The NRC will review the plant’s analysis.

An Alert is the second lowest of the NRC’s emergency level classification. Once the 

event is over, the NRC will review the utility’s actions and follow up on the cause of the leak. 

###

News releases are available through a free listserv subscription or by clicking on the EMAIL UPDATES 

link on the NRC homepage (www.nrc.gov). E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are 

posted to NRC's website. For the latest news, follow the NRC on www.twitter.com/NRCgov.
#### § 423.3 What this regulation does.

This regulation requires manufacturers and importers of textile wearing apparel and certain piece goods, in or affecting commerce, as “commerce” is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, to provide regular care instructions at the time such products are sold to purchasers through the use of care labels or other methods described in this rule.
#### § 910.6 Effective date.

This part is effective September 4, 2024.