alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Filed 5/8/18 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2018 ND 107

In the Interest of F.M.G.

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

Eduardo P. Yabut, MD        Petitioner and Appellee

v.

F.M.G., Respondent and Appellant

No. 20180139

Appeal from the District Court of Stutsman County, Southeast Judicial District, the Honorable Mark T. Blumer, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Leo A. Ryan, State’s Attorney, Jamestown, ND, for petitioner and appellee; submitted on brief.

Andrew Marquart, Fargo, ND, for respondent and appellant; submitted on brief.

Interest of F.M.G.

No. 20180139

Per Curiam.

[¶1]F.M.G. appeals from the district court’s order entered on April 3, 2018, for continued treatment at the North Dakota State Hospital for a period not to exceed one year.  F.M.G. argues the State Hospital did not present clear and convincing evidence that she is a mentally ill person requiring treatment.  The district court found by clear and convincing evidence that F.M.G. is a mentally ill person requiring treatment.  We affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

[¶2]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Daniel J. Crothers

Lisa Fair McEvers

Jon J. Jensen

Jerod E. Tufte
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 7531** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. STEPHEN J. WASHINGTON , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria
. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. ( 1:06

- cr - 00068

- TSE

- 1 ; 1:12

- cv - 00650

- TSE )

Submitted : January 2, 2013 Decided: January 10, 2013

Before SHEDD and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Stephen J. Washington , Appellant Pro Se. Kara Martin Traster, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee
. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in t his circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Stephen J. Washington seeks to appeal the district court’s order s dismissing his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2012 ) motion as successive and denying his motion for reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circui t justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (2006) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the di strict court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable cla im of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently review ed the record and conclude that Washington has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal
.3 Additionally, we construe Washington’ s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. United States v. Winestock , 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) newly discovered evidence, not previously discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review. 28 U.S.C. A. § 22 55(h ) (West Supp. 2012). Wa shington’ s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to fi le a successive § 2255 motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is co urt and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
ERNST & YOUNG

					**Ernst & Young LLP			Phone: (312) 879 2000
					Sears Tower			www.ey.com

					233 South Wacker Drive

					Chicago, Illinois 60606 6301

Report on Management's Assertion on Compliance

With Minimum Servicing Standards Set Forth in the

Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers

Report of Independent Accountants

Board of Directors

LaSalle Bank Corporation

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying report titled *Report of**Management*, that except for noncompliance with the minimum servicing standard for escrow funds, ABN AMRO Mortgage Group, Inc. (AAMG, a wholly owned subsidiary of LaSalle Bank Corporation) complied with the minimum servicing standards set forth in the Mortgage Bankers Association of America's *Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers* (USAP) during the year ended December 31, 2002. Management is responsible for AAMG's compliance with those requirements.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertions about AAMG's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about AAMG'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 AAMG's compliance with specified requirements.

In our opinion, management's assertion, that except for noncompliance with the minimum servicing standard for escrow funds, AAMG complied with the aforementioned requirements during the year ended December 31, 2002, is fairly stated, in all material respects. 

This report is intended solely for the information and use of the board of directors, management, and AAMG's private investors and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.

 

       Ernst & Young LLP

 

January 20, 2003

 

 

 

 

 

A Member Practice of Ernst & Young Global**
March 31, 2016 

The Honorable Mary Fallin 

Governor of Oklahoma 

Oklahoma City, OK 73105 

Dear Governor Fallin: 

In 1976, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) adopted a recommendation 

from several State organizations, including the National Governors Association, that each State 

appoint a single person to act as a liaison to the NRC to help improve Federal/State 

cooperation. The NRC looks to the Governor-appointed State Liaison Officer to be the primary 

communication channel between the State and the NRC. The State Liaison Officer serves as 

the key person in the State to keep the Governor and other State agencies informed about 

issues under the NRC’s jurisdiction (specifically matters addressing nuclear regulation, nuclear 

security, nuclear emergency preparedness, and radiological public health and safety) and to 

provide the NRC with State information on particular nuclear safety, security, and 

environmental issues. 

I am writing to request the continued participation of the State of Oklahoma in the 

NRC’s State Liaison Officer program. The NRC has been working with the State Liaison 

Officer appointed by a former governor: Mr. Mike Broderick, Environmental Programs Manager 

for the Radiation Management Section in the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality. 

The NRC will continue to work with Mr. Broderick to keep you informed of our programs and 

activities, however, to ensure continued clear communication between the NRC and the State 

of Oklahoma, I would appreciate receiving your written affirmation of Mr. Broderick, or another 

individual as your selected appointee as State Liaison Officer for the State of Oklahoma. 

I am providing you with a copy of the NRC brochure entitled, “State Liaison Officer 

Program,” which provides background information on, and describes the role of, the State 

Liaison Officer. I am also enclosing a copy of the NRC “2015-2016 Information Digest,” which 

provides information describing the NRC’s mission and its regulatory programs. 

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this correspondence or wish to obtain 

additional information about the State Liaison Officer program, please contact Mr. Daniel 

Collins, Director, Division of Material Safety, State, Tribal, and Rulemaking Programs, Office of 

Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, at (301) 415-3340 or by e-mail at 

Daniel.Collins@nrc.gov. 
 -2- 

 

I thank you in advance for your assistance. The Commission looks forward to the 

continued participation by the State of Oklahoma in the NRC’s State Liaison Officer program. 

Sincerely, 

/RA/ 

 

 Stephen G. Burns 

Enclosures: 

1. NRC Brochure, 

 “State Liaison Officer Program” 

2. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

 2015-2016 Information Digest, 

 NUREG-1350, Volume 27 

 

cc: w/o enclosures 

 Mike Broderick, Oklahoma Department 

 of Environmental Quality
### **CHAPTER 6—THE CHILDREN'S BUREAU**

Sec.
191.
Bureau established.
192.
Chief of bureau; investigations and reports.
193.
Assistant chief.
194.
Quarters for bureau.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3853 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3853

    To provide for semiannual actuarial studies of the FHA mortgage 
  insurance program of the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 
 during periods that the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund does not meet 
                  minimum capital ratio requirements.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 31, 2012

  Mr. Lynch introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To provide for semiannual actuarial studies of the FHA mortgage 
  insurance program of the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 
 during periods that the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund does not meet 
                  minimum capital ratio requirements.

    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 ``FHA Enhanced Oversight Act of 
2012''.

SEC. 2. SEMIANNUAL ACTUARIAL STUDIES OF MMIF DURING PERIODS OF CAPITAL 
              DEPLETION.

    Paragraph (4) of section 202(a) of the National Housing Act (12 
U.S.C. 1708(a)(4)) is amended--
            (1) in the first sentence, by inserting ``except as 
        provided in subparagraph (B),'' after ``to be conducted 
        annually,'';
            (2) in the second sentence, by inserting ``, except as 
        provided in subparagraph (B),'' after ``annually'';
            (3) by striking the paragraph designation and heading and 
        all that follows through ``The Secretary shall provide'' and 
        inserting the following:
            ``(4) Independent actuarial study.--
                    ``(A) Annual study.--The Secretary shall provide''; 
                and
            (4) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(B) Semiannual studies during periods of capital 
                depletion.--During any period that the Fund fails to 
                maintain sufficient capital to comply with the capital 
                ratio requirement under section 205(f)(2)--
                            ``(i) the independent study required by 
                        subparagraph (A) shall be conducted 
                        semiannually and shall analyze the financial 
                        position of the Fund as of September 30 and 
                        March 31 of each fiscal year during such 
                        period; and
                            ``(ii) the Secretary shall submit a report 
                        meeting the requirements of subparagraph (A) 
                        for each such semiannual study.''.
                                 <all>
```
### §11906. Reports

#### (a) Grantee reports

The Secretary shall require grantees under this subchapter to provide periodic reports that include the obligation and expenditure of grant funds, the progress made by the grantee in implementing the plan described in section 11904(a) of this title, and any change in the incidence of drug-related crime in projects assisted under this subchapter.

#### (b) HUD reports

The Secretary shall submit a report to the Congress not later than 18 months after October 21, 1998, describing the system used to distribute funding to grantees under this section, which shall include descriptions of—

(1) the methodology used to distribute amounts made available under this subchapter among public housing agencies, including provisions used to provide for renewals of ongoing programs funded under this subchapter; and

(2) actions taken by the Secretary to ensure that amounts made available under this subchapter are not used to fund baseline local government services, as described in section 11907(b) of this title.

#### (c) Notice of funding awards

The Secretary shall cause to be published in the Federal Register notice of all grant awards made pursuant to this subchapter, which shall identify the grantees and the amount of the grants. Such notice shall be published not less frequently than annually.

(Pub. L. 100–690, title V, §5127, as added Pub. L. 105–276, title V, §586(g), Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2649.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 11906, Pub. L. 100–690, title V, §5127, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4303; Pub. L. 101–625, title V, §581(a), Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 4248, related to implementation of this subchapter, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 105–276, title V, §§503, 586(g), Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2521, 2649, effective and applicable beginning upon Oct. 1, 1999, except as otherwise provided, with provision that Secretary may implement the repeal before such date, except to extent otherwise provided, and with savings provision.

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective and applicable beginning upon Oct. 1, 1999, except as otherwise provided, with provision that Secretary may implement section before such date, except to extent otherwise provided, see section 503 of Pub. L. 105–276, set out as an Effective Date of 1998 Amendment note under section 1437 of this title.
#### § 170.4 Allocation of dues (section 17(b)(6) of the Act).

Dues imposed on members of a futures association must be allocated equitably among members and may not be structured in a manner constituting a barrier to entry of any person seeking to engage in commodity-related business activities.
§ 1402.1 Scope. ( a ) This part 1402 requires manufacturers (including importers) of Citizens Band (CB) base station antennas, outdoor television (TV) antennas, and their supporting structures to provide notification of ways to avoid the hazard of electrocution which exists when these products are allowed to come near powerlines while the antennas are being put up or taken down. The notification must be provided to ( 1 ) prospective purchasers of such products at the time of original purchase and
( 2 ) the first purchaser of such products for purposes other than resale. The notification consists of instructions to accompany the products, warning labels on the products, and warning statements on the packaging or parts container. Samples of the instructions, labels, and warning statements must also be provided to the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
( b ) This part 1402 applies to any of the following that are “consumer products” as defined in section 3 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2052) and that are manufactured or imported, or packaged or sold by the manufacturer or importer, after September 26, 1978. ( 1 ) Antennas designed or intended to be used as outdoor CB base station antennas (referred to in this rule as “CB base station antennas”).
( 2 ) Antennas designed or intended to be used as outdoor TV receiving antennas (referred to in this rule as “TV antennas”).
( 3 ) Antenna supporting structures, which are elements over 5 feet in length that are intended to support these types of antennas at a higher elevation. These structures include towers, tripods, and masts. Devices which merely secure the antenna in place are not included.
[43 FR 28392, June 29, 1978, as amended at 43 FR 47722, Oct. 17, 1978]
### §13262. Enforcement

#### (a) Violation

Whoever violates section 13261 of this title shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 for each violation.

#### (b) Willful violation

Whoever willfully violates section 13261 of this title shall be fined not more than $10,000 for each violation.

#### (c) Knowing and willful violation following prior violation and penalty

Any person who knowingly and willfully violates section 13261 of this title after having been subjected to a civil penalty for a prior violation of section 13261 of this title shall be fined not more than $50,000.

(Pub. L. 102–486, title V, §512, Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 2899.)
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

REYNA MACIAS,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 06-70228

Agency No. A079-394-965

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 25, 2010** 

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

Reyna Macias, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an

FILED

JUN 09 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 06-70228

immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 

We grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings. 

The BIA concluded that Macias’s conviction for being under the influence

of a controlled substance pursuant to Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11550 rendered

her ineligible for relief from removal. The BIA, however, did not have the benefit

of our intervening decision in Rice v. Holder, 597 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 2010),

which held that an individual convicted in state court of using or being under the

influence of a controlled substance and whose conviction is subsequently

expunged is eligible for the same immigration treatment as individuals convicted

of drug possession under the Federal First Offender Act. 

We therefore remand for the BIA to reconsider Macias’s eligibility for relief

from removal. See generally INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002).

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
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

# AGENCY:

                        Notice is hereby given that, on September 22, 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”), Petroleum convenience Alliance for Technology Standards (“PCATS”) 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: Petroleum Convenience Alliance for Technology Standards, Alexandria, VA. The nature and scope of PCATS' standards development activities are: (1) Development and maintenance of XML-based standards for electronic data interchange, specifically related to information between point-of-sale (POS) systems and back office systems, and for exchanging data between trading partners for general merchandise, lottery, and motor fuels; (2) development of an “open site” architecture for integration of devices used by petroleum and convenience retailers through peer-to-peer messaging, based on JXTA, an open standard; and (3) maintenance of product codes used in terminal-to-host messages developed by ANSI-Accredited Standards Committee X9, originally contained in Technical Guide-23 (1999) and now being balloted by X9 for adoption as X9.104, Parts 1 and 2.

Dorothy B. Fountain,

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 04-26226 Filed 11-26-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
### §13861. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 13861 was editorially reclassified as section 12221 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.