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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1066

SOLOMON ASEFFA DEGU,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals.

Submitted: September 17, 2014 Decided: September 24, 2014

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per 

curiam opinion.

Workneh Churnet, LAW OFFICE OF WORKNEH CHURNET, Washington, 

D.C., for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney 

General, Daniel E. Goldman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Samuel P. 

Go, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for 

Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Solomon Aseffa Degu, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, 

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the Immigration 

Judge’s denial of his requests for asylum, withholding of 

removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We 

have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the record 

evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the 

agency’s factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), 

and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision. 

See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). 

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review in part. With 

regard to the procedural due process claims raised by Degu, we 

note that such claims were reviewable by the Board. Because 

Degu failed to properly exhaust the claims before the Board 

prior to raising them before this court, we lack jurisdiction to 

review them.*

 See Farrokhi v. INS, 900 F.2d 697, 700-01 (4th 

Cir. 1990). 

We therefore deny in part and dismiss in part the 

petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the 

 * Degu claims that he was unable to exhaust these claims on 

account of ineffective assistance of counsel. To raise such a 

claim, however, Degu must file a motion to reopen with the Board 

pursuant to Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (B.I.A. 1988). 
3

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

PETITION DENIED IN PART

AND DISMISSED IN PART
### SUBCHAPTER V—INDIAN ENERGY
### §15251. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 15251 was editorially reclassified as section 50321 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

Docket Number: FAA- 2011-0309

Directorate Identifier: 2010NM255AD

GOODRICH 47142-27-15 --- 2/2/10

GOODRICH 47142-27-17 --- 2/2/10

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
### §1320e–2. Trust Fund transfers to Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Trust Fund

#### (a) In general

The Secretary shall provide for the transfer, from the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund under section 1395i of this title and the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund under section 1395t of this title, in proportion (as estimated by the Secretary) to the total expenditures during such fiscal year that are made under subchapter XVIII from the respective trust fund, to the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Trust Fund (referred to in this section as the "PCORTF") under section 9511 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, of the following:

(1) For fiscal year 2013, an amount equal to $1 multiplied by the average number of individuals entitled to benefits under part A, or enrolled under part B, of subchapter XVIII during such fiscal year.

(2) For each of fiscal years 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019, an amount equal to $2 multiplied by the average number of individuals entitled to benefits under part A, or enrolled under part B, of subchapter XVIII during such fiscal year.

#### (b) Adjustments for increases in health care spending

In the case of any fiscal year beginning after September 30, 2014, the dollar amount in effect under subsection (a)(2) for such fiscal year shall be equal to the sum of such dollar amount for the previous fiscal year (determined after the application of this subsection), plus an amount equal to the product of—

(1) such dollar amount for the previous fiscal year, multiplied by

(2) the percentage increase in the projected per capita amount of National Health Expenditures, as most recently published by the Secretary before the beginning of the fiscal year.

(Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title XI, §1183, as added Pub. L. 111–148, title VI, §6301(d), Mar. 23, 2010, 124 Stat. 741.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Internal Revenue Code of 1986, referred to in subsec. (a), is classified generally to Title 26, Internal Revenue Code.
§ 1028.109 IRB review of research. ( a ) An IRB shall review and have authority to approve, require modifications in (to secure approval), or disapprove all research activities covered by this policy, including exempt research activities under § 1028.104 for which limited IRB review is a condition of exemption (under § 1028.104(d)(2)(iii), (d)(3)(i)(C), or (d)(7) or (8)).
( b ) An IRB shall require that information given to subjects (or legally authorized representatives, when appropriate) as part of informed consent is in accordance with § 1028.116. The IRB may require that information, in addition to that specifically mentioned in § 1028.116, be given to the subjects when in the IRB's judgment the information would meaningfully add to the protection of the rights and welfare of subjects.
( c ) An IRB shall require documentation of informed consent or may waive documentation in accordance with § 1028.117.
( d ) An IRB shall notify investigators and the institution in writing of its decision to approve or disapprove the proposed research activity, or of modifications required to secure IRB approval of the research activity. If the IRB decides to disapprove a research activity, it shall include in its written notification a statement of the reasons for its decision and give the investigator an opportunity to respond in person or in writing.
( e ) An IRB shall conduct continuing review of research requiring review by the convened IRB at intervals appropriate to the degree of risk, not less than once per year, except as described in paragraph (f) of this section.
( f ) ( 1 ) Unless an IRB determines otherwise, continuing review of research is not required in the following circumstances: ( i ) Research eligible for expedited review in accordance with § 1028.110;
( ii ) Research reviewed by the IRB in accordance with the limited IRB review described in § 1028.104(d)(2)(iii), (d)(3)(i)(C), or (d)(7) or (8);
( iii ) Research that has progressed to the point that it involves only one or both of the following, which are part of the IRB-approved study: ( A ) Data analysis, including analysis of identifiable private information or identifiable biospecimens, or
( B ) Accessing follow-up clinical data from procedures that subjects would undergo as part of clinical care.
( 2 ) [Reserved]
( g ) An IRB shall have authority to observe or have a third party observe the consent process and the research.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under Control Number 0990-0260)
This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before HITESMAN, STEWART, and GEIS Appellate Military Judges

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES Appellee

v.
Daniel VAN DIJK Information Systems Technician Third Class ( E

- 4), U.S. Navy Appellant

No. 201900288

Decided: 21 May 2020
Appeal from the United States Navy

- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary
Military Judges : Derek Butler (arraignment) Aaron Rugh (trial)
Sentence adjudged 16 September 2019 by a general court

- martial convened at Naval Base San Diego, California, consisting of a military judge sit ting alone

. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment : reduction to E

- 1, confinement for 42 months , 1 and a bad

- conduct discharge
For Appellant: Captain Brian L. Farrell, USMC
For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

1 The convening a uthority suspended confinement in excess of 33 months pursuant to a pretrial agreement.United States v. Van Dijk , NMCCA No. 201900288 Opinion of the Court

2 _________________________ This opinion does not ser ve as binding precedent under NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2 (a)

.

_________________________

PER CURIAM : After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of
error, we have determined that the findings and sentence are correct i n law and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to A ppellant’s substantial rights occurred. Articles 59 and 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice , 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866.
T he findings and sentence are AFFIRMED

.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR. Clerk of Court
### §15425. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 15425 was editorially reclassified as section 21025 of Title 52, Voting and Elections.
### §§1401 to 1404. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Sections 1401 to 1404 were omitted in the general revision of the United States Housing Act of 1937 by Pub. L. 93–383, title II, §201(a), Aug. 22, 1974, 88 Stat. 653.

Section 1401, acts Sept. 1, 1937, ch. 896, §1, 50 Stat. 888; July 15, 1949, 338, title III, §307(a), 63 Stat. 429; Sept. 23, 1959, Pub. L. 86–372, title V, §501, 73 Stat. 679; Aug. 1, 1968, Pub. L. 90–448, title II, §206(a), 82 Stat. 504; Dec. 31, 1970, Pub. L. 91–609, title II, §211, 84 Stat. 1779, set out declaration of policy. See section 1437 of this title.

Section 1402, acts, Sept. 1, 1937, ch. 896, §2, 50 Stat. 888; July 15, 1949, ch. 338, title III, §§302(b), 304(c), (i), 306, 307(b), 63 Stat. 424, 425, 429; Oct. 26, 1951, ch. 577, §1, 65 Stat. 647; June 30, 1953, 170, §24(c), 67 Stat. 128; Aug. 7, 1956, ch. 1029, title IV, §404(a), 70 Stat. 1104; July 12, 1957, Pub. L. 85–104, title III, §307, title IV, §401(a), 71 Stat. 301; Sept. 23, 1959, Pub. L. 86–372, title V, §§502, 503(a), 504, 73 Stat. 680; June 30, 1961, Pub. L. 87–70, title II, §202, 75 Stat. 163; Sept. 2, 1964, Pub. L. 88–560, title II, §203(d), title IV, §401(a), 78 Stat. 784, 794; Aug. 10, 1965, Pub. L. 89–117, title I, §§103(b), 104, 79 Stat. 457; Aug. 1, 1968, Pub. L. 90–448, title II, §209(a), 82 Stat. 505; Dec. 24, 1969, Pub. L. 91–152, title II, §213(a), title IV, §403(a), 83 Stat. 389, 395; Dec. 31, 1970, Pub. L. 91–609, title II, §208(a), title IX, §903(c), 84 Stat. 1778, 1808; Dec. 22, 1971, Pub. L. 92–213, §9, 85 Stat. 776, defined applicable terms. See section 1437a of this title.

Section 1403, acts Sept. 1, 1937, ch. 896, §3, 50 Stat. 889; May 25, 1967, Pub. L. 90–19, §2(b), 81 Stat. 20; Aug. 1, 1968, Pub. L. 90–448, title XVII, §1719(a), 82 Stat. 610, created the United States Housing Authority in the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Section 1404, acts Sept. 1, 1937, ch. 896, §4, 50 Stat. 889; Oct. 28, 1949, ch. 782, title XI, §1106(a), 63 Stat. 972; May 25, 1967, Pub. L. 90–19, §2(a), (c), 81 Stat. 19, 20, provided for assistance of officers, etc., of other agencies and transfer of property to the Authority.

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

#### Effective Date of 1969 Amendment; Applicability

Pub. L. 91–152, title II, §213(b), Dec. 24, 1969, 83 Stat. 389, provided that the rents fixed by public housing agencies not exceed one-fourth of a low-rent housing tenant's income be effective not later than ninety days after Dec. 24, 1969, and that the requirements not apply in any case in which the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development determined that limiting the rent of any tenant or class of tenants would have resulted in a deduction in the amount of welfare assistance which would otherwise have been provided to the tenant or class of tenants by a public agency.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 26 (Monday, February 9, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 5948]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-2674]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Deschutes Provincial Advisory Committee (DPAC)

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Deschutes Provincial Advisory Committee will meet on 
February 26, 2004, starting at 8 a.m. at the Redmond New Historic Hotel 
Conference Room on 521 S. 6th Street, Redmond, Oregon. Agenda items 
will include an open public forum from 9:15 a.m. till 9:45 a.m., Review 
of standing subcommittees, and the remaining time will be spent 
identifying present and future PAC representation needs. All Deschutes 
Province Advisory Committee meetings are open to the public.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chris Mickle, Province Liaison, 
Deschutes NF, Crescent Rd., P.O. Box 208, Crescent, OR, 97754, phone 
(541) 433-3216.

    Dated: February 2, 2004.
Leslie A.C. Weldon,
Deschutes National Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 04-2674 Filed 2-6-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
#### S. F. Svenson and Harold M. Swensen, Defendants in Error, v. Lucy Roth and Paulina Hockstadter, Plaintiffs in Error.

Gen. No. 18,566.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Abstract of the Decision.

Municipal Court of Chicago, § *26*
      ***
      *—when transcript' of record insufficient.*Where, on a writ of error to the Municipal Court of Chicago, the transcript of the record which was filed in sections, does not disclose the contents of the statement of claim’ and does not contain the matter necessary for the Appellate Court to consider in passing on the merits of the controversy, the finding and judgment of the trial court will not be interfered with.

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Hosea W. Wells, Judge,' presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1912.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed January 25, 1915.

Rehearing denied February 8, 1915.

Statement of the Case.

Action by S. F. Svenson and Harold M. Swensen against Lucy Both and Paulina Hockstadter to recover balance due on contract for the painting and interior furnishing of a house.

To reverse a judgment for plaintiffs, defendants prosecute error.

Henry Roth, for plaintiffs in error.

Monroe Fulkerson, for defendants in error.

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic mid section number.

Mr. Presiding Justice Brown

delivered the opinion of the court.
National Archives and Records Administratif ~n ~

Office of the Federal Register (IJ. ./

~

CI:;

rtr 21 2007

Ms. Nancy Molitor

Ref:,rulations Division (AGe-200)

Office of the ChicfCounsel

Federal Aviation Administration, DOT

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591

Dear Ms. Molitor:

The matenallisted in the attachment is approved for mcorporation by reference in 14 CFR Part 39.

This <Ipproval is contingent upon the final rule containing any language changes, which were agreed upon by

OUT staffs. The approval to incorporate by reference this publication(s) is effective on the effective date of your

final rule. If you wish to enforce some other edition of the publication(s) approved, you must:

1. Publish notice ofthe change in the Federal Register, and amend the

Code of Federal Regulations; and

2. Ensure that a copy of that edition IS on file at the Office of the Federal Register; and

3. Notify me in writing of the change.

Smcerely,

fw~lv-~

ftn--

RAYMOND A. MOSLEY

Director of the Federal Register

FederalRegisterAttomey:~

Attachment

us. mail address: B601Adelphi Road, College Park, MD 20740-6001

Office location: 300 North '..-ilpitolStreet, NW, Suite 700, Washington, OC 20002-4244

Federal Register web sites: http:j jv"" ..-w.arduves.gov Ifederal-regisler Imd http:! jWW'.".gpoacxess_gov j nara
Incorporation by Reference

Docket No. FAA-2006-26044; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-098-AD; Amdt. 39-14960; AD 2007-04-27

Fokker Service Bulletin F28132-

163

dated March 8, 2004

Docket No. FAA-2006-26496; Directorate Idemijier 2006-CE-81-AD; Arndt. 39-14958; AD 2007-04-25

Alpha Avation Service Bulletin AA-SB28-001dated July 10, 2006

Dock.et No. FAA-2007-27335; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-291-AD; Amdt. 39-14962; AD 2007-05-01

EADS-CA$A

Primed 2/1112007

All Operator Letter 212·

018

dated December 1, 2006

Pagelofl
Exhibit 5.1


May 30, 1997

Ladies and Gentlemen:

This is with respect to the Registration Statement on Form S-8,  
to which this opinion is an exhibit, covering 3,500,000 
shares of Clorox Common Stock which may be issued pursuant 
to stock awards and the exercise of options granted under 
The Clorox Company 1996 Stock Incentive Plan (the "Plan").

It is my opinion that:

1.  All necessary corporate action has been duly taken to adopt 
    said Plan and said Plan was duly approved by action of 
    the stockholders of The Clorox Company.

2.  Said 3,500,000 shares of Clorox Common Stock have been 
    reserved for purposes of said Plan and such shares, when 
    issued on exercise of options granted in accordance with 
    the terms and conditions of said Plan, will be legally 
    issued, fully paid and non-assessable.

I hereby consent to the filing of this opinion with the 
Commission as an exhibit to the aforesaid registration statement.  

Very truly,


/s/ EDWARD A. CUTTER
Edward A. Cutter
Senior Vice President - 
General Counsel and
Secretary
**Exhibit.16.1**

 

**Auditors’ Letter Regarding Change in Auditor**

 

May 6, 2020

 

Securities and Exchange Commission

 

Washington, D.C. 20549

 

Ladies and Gentlemen:

 

We were previously principal accountants for Natura &CoHolding S.A. and, under the date of May 6, 2020, we reported on the consolidated financial statements of Natura &Co HoldingS.A. as of and for the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018. On March 31, 2020, we were formally notified that we were dismissed.

 

We have read Natura &Co Holding S.A. statements includedunder Item 16F of its Form 20F dated May 6, 2020, and we agree with such statements, except that we are not in a position to agreeor disagree with Natura &Co Holding S.A. stated reason for changing principal accountants.

 

Very truly yours,

 

/s/ KPMG Auditores Independentes

 

 

São Paulo, Brazil
### §§17793 to 17795. Repealed. Pub. L. 111–314, §6, Dec. 18, 2010, 124 Stat. 3444

Section 17793, Pub. L. 110–422, title VIII, §803, Oct. 15, 2008, 122 Stat. 4803, related to requests for specific mission information. See section 71102 of Title 51, National and Commercial Space Programs.

Section 17794, Pub. L. 110–422, title VIII, §804, Oct. 15, 2008, 122 Stat. 4804, established policy with respect to threats posed by near-Earth objects. See section 71103 of Title 51.

Section 17795, Pub. L. 110–422, title VIII, §805, Oct. 15, 2008, 122 Stat. 4804, related to required planetary radar capability. See section 71104 of Title 51.
### §14613. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 14613 was editorially reclassified as section 40313 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
5335.015-70 Special Use Allowances for

Research Facilities Acquired by Educational

Institutions

(c) See MP5301.601(a)(i).

(d)(3)(ii) See MP5301.601(a)(i).

Parent topic: Part 5335 - Research and Development Contracting
§ 202.6 Adoption, revision, and rescission of rules and regulations of general application. ( a ) The procedure followed by the Commission in connection with the adoption, revision, and rescission of rules of general application necessarily varies in accordance with the nature of the rule, the extent of public interest therein, and the necessity for speed in its adoption. Rules relating to Commission organization, procedure and management, for example, are generally adopted by the Commission without affording public discussion thereof. On the other hand, in the adoption of substantive rules materially affecting an industry or a segment of the public, such as accounting rules, every feasible effort is made in advance of adoption to receive the views of persons to be affected. In such cases, proposals for the adoption, revision, or rescission of rules are initiated either by the Commission or by members of the public, and to the extent practicable, the practices set forth in paragraph (b) of this section are observed.
( b ) After preliminary consideration by the Commission a draft of the proposed rule is published in the Federal Register and mailed to interested persons (e.g., other interested regulatory bodies, principal registrants or persons to be affected, stock exchanges, professional societies and leading authorities on the subject concerned and other persons requesting such draft) for comments. Unless accorded confidential treatment pursuant to statute or rule of the Commission, written comments filed with the Commission on or before the closing date for comments become a part of the public record upon the proposed rule. The Commission, in its discretion, may accept and include in the public record written comments received by the Commission after the closing date.
( c ) Following analysis of comments received, the rule may be adopted in the form published or in a revised form in the light of such comments. In some cases, a revised draft is prepared and published and, where appropriate, an oral hearing may be held before final action upon the proposal. Any interested person may appear at the hearing and/or may submit written comment for consideration in accordance with the Commission's notice of the rulemaking procedure to be followed. The rule in the form in which it is adopted by the Commission is publicly released and is published in the Federal Register.
[25 FR 6736, July 15, 1960, as amended at 44 FR 35208, June 19, 1979; 76 FR 71875, Nov. 21, 2011]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Lucco Gallo, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed. No opinion. Present—Clarke, P. J., Laughlin, Scott, Dowling and Page, JJ.