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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GUY AFEK OHAYON,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 11-72631

Agency No. A095-658-113

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 4, 2015** 

Pasadena California

Before: KLEINFELD and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and CARR, Senior District

Judge.*** 

Petitioner Guy Afek Ohayon seeks review of a Board of Immigration

Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming the decision of an immigration judge (“IJ”)

FILED

FEB 18 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * 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).

 *** The Honorable James G. Carr, Senior District Judge for the U.S.

District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
ordering Ohayon removed from the United States. We have jurisdiction pursuant

to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. 

Where, as here, the BIA summarily affirms the IJ without an opinion, we

review the IJ’s decision. Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir. 2008). 

Ohayon was charged with two grounds of removability: unauthorized employment

in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(C)(i); and overstaying a visa in violation of

§ 1227(a)(1)(C)(ii). In his opening brief, Ohayon challenges the visa overstay

charge on due process grounds. Ohayon, however, does not challenge the

unauthorized employment charge, which he admitted before the IJ. In light of

Ohayon’s failure to address this alternate ground of removal, we need not reach his

challenge to the visa overstay charge because the unauthorized employment charge

alone is sufficient to support removal. See Haile v. Holder, 658 F.3d 1122, 1130

(9th Cir. 2011) (denying a petition for review where an alien failed to address an

alternate ground for the BIA’s holding). In his reply brief, Ohayon argues he

should be allowed to withdraw his concession of the visa overstay charge, but he

has failed to present any evidence showing that the “egregious circumstances”

required for such a withdrawal are present. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657

F.3d 820, 831 (9th Cir. 2011). 

PETITION DENIED.
£¤189

£¤191

Afton

La Barge

Pinedale

Cokeville

Big Piney

NO WARRANTY IS MADE BY THE BLM FOR USE OF THE DATA FOR PURPOSES NOT INTENDED BY BLM. 

0 10 20 40

Miles

0 10 20 40

Kilometers

o

Wyoming Sage-grouse 

Land Use Plan Amendments

Map 3-8: Livestock Grazing Allotments 

Bridger Teton National Forest

LUP Amendments Planning Area

BLM Field Office Boundary

Forest Service Planning Unit Boundary

Bridger Teton National Forest Grazing Allotments

Counties

Water

State / US Hwy

Cities
§ 585.417 When may BOEM order a suspension? BOEM may order a suspension under the following circumstances: ( a ) When necessary to comply with judicial decrees prohibiting some or all activities under your lease; or
( b ) When the suspension is necessary for reasons of national security or defense.
#### § 725.14 Grant periods.

The Director or his authorized designee shall normally approve a grant for a period of one year or less. OSM shall fund a program that extends over more than one year by consecutive annual grants or amendments to the existing grant.

[47 FR 38490, Aug. 31, 1982]
#### In the Matter of Jenece Brown et al., Respondents, v New York City Housing Authority, Appellant.

[834 NYS2d 279]—

*745In a proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) for leave to serve and file a late notice of claim, the New York City Housing Authority appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), dated June 6, 2006, which granted the application.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, and the application is denied.

The infant petitioner allegedly was abducted from a school bus stop at gunpoint and taken to a vacant building owned by the appellant, the New York City Housing Authority (hereinafter NYCHA), where she was sexually assaulted. The infant petitioner and her father commenced this proceeding for leave to serve and file a late notice of claim. The petitioners allege that negligent inspection, maintenance, and security at the building was a proximate cause of damages arising from the assault. The Supreme Court granted the application. We reverse.

Ordinarily, the courts will not delve into the merits of an action on an application for leave to serve and file a late notice of claim *(see Matter of Katz v Town of Bedford,*192 AD2d 707 [1993]). However, it is an improvident exercise of discretion to grant an application where, as here, the underlying action is patently meritless *(see Matter of Catherine G. v County of Essex,*3 NY3d 175 [2004]; *Matter of Nacherlilla v City of New York,*35 AD3d 613 [2006]). The duty of a landowner to provide minimal security precautions against the foreseeable criminal conduct of third parties does not “embrace members of the public at large, with no connection to the premises, who might be victimized by street predators” *(Waters v New York City Hous. Auth. ,*69 NY2d 225, 229 [1987]; *see also Audrey B. v New York City Hous. Auth.,*202 AD2d 532 [1994]). Here, because the infant petitioner “had no association with the premises independent of the crime itself, the landowner’s duty to maintain the security of the building may not be deemed to extend to her” *(Waters v New York City Hous. Auth., supra*at 231), regardless of whether the ultimate harm was reasonably foreseeable *(id.*at 230-231; *see also Audrey B. v New York City Hous. Auth., supra).*

In any event, in support of its application, the petitioners *746failed to demonstrate, inter alia, a reasonable excuse for the delay or that the NYCHA would not be prejudiced by the delay *(see Matter of Dumancela v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.,*32 AD3d 515*[2006]; Matter of Olsen v County of Nassau,*14 AD3d 706 [2005]; *Matter of Ridley v New York City Tr. Auth.,*38 AD2d 973 [1972]). Thus, the grant of the petitioners’ application was an improvident exercise of discretion. Miller, J.P., Santucci, Florio and Lifson, JJ., concur.
#### § 922.800 General requirements for bonding of surface coal mining and reclamation operations.

Part 800 of this chapter, *General Requirements for Bonding of Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Operations Under Regulatory Programs,* shall apply to all surface coal mining and reclamation operations.
#### Dukes of Dixieland, Appellant, v. Audio Fidelity, Inc., Defendant-Respondent and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. Joseph P. Delaney, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

Orders entered on May 3, 1962, unanimously reversed, on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the motions to dismiss the third-party complaint granted, with $10 costs, without prejudice, however, in the exercise of discretion, to the institution of a separate action by respondent (cf. *Braun*v. *City of New York,*17 A D 2d 264; *Kratter Gorp.*v. *Grad,*Appeal No. 566, Cal. June 4, 1963). We do not reach or pass upon the merits of respondent’s claim. We hold only that, as pleaded, the third-party complaint fails to meet the basic requirements of section 193-a of the Civil Practice Act. Concur — Botein, P. J., Stevens, Steuer, Bergan and Bastow, JJ.
```

[115th Congress Public Law 124]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 132 STAT. 314]]

Public Law 115-124
115th Congress

                                 An Act

 
Making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year 
   ending September 30, 2017, and for other purposes. <<NOTE: Feb. 9, 
                         2018 -  [H.R. 1301]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: Continuing 
Appropriations Amendments Act, 2018. 131 Stat. 1139, 1280, 2044; Ante, 
pp. 29, 120.>> 

    Sec. 101.  The Continuing Appropriations Act, 2018 (division D of 
Public Law 115-56) is further amended by inserting after section 165 the 
following new section:
    ``Sec. 166. (a) Employees furloughed as a result of any lapse in 
appropriations which begins on or about February 9, 2018, shall be 
compensated at their standard rate of compensation, for the period of 
such lapse in appropriations, as soon as practicable after such lapse in 
appropriations ends.
    ``(b) <<NOTE: Definition.>>  For purposes of this section, 
`employee' means:
            ``(1) a Federal employee;
            ``(2) an employee of the District of Columbia Courts;
            ``(3) an employee of the Public Defender Service for the 
        District of Columbia; or
            ``(4) a District of Columbia Government employee.

    ``(c) All obligations incurred in anticipation of the appropriations 
made and authority granted by this division for the purposes of 
maintaining the essential level of activity to protect life and property 
and bringing about orderly termination of Government functions, and for 
purposes as otherwise authorized by law, are hereby ratified and 
approved if otherwise in accord with the provisions of this division.''.
    Sec. 102.  For <<NOTE: Time period.>>  the purposes of division D of 
Public Law 115-56, the time covered by such division shall be considered 
to include the period which began on or about February 9, 2018, during 
which there occurred a lapse in appropriations.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Continuing Appropriations Amendments 
Act, 2018''.

    Approved February 9, 2018.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 1301:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
                                                        Vol. 163 (2017):
                                    Mar. 8, considered and passed House.
                                                        Vol. 164 (2018):
                                    Feb. 8, considered and passed 
                                        Senate, amended. House concurred 
                                        in Senate amendment.

                                  <all>
```
#### In re SCHLOTTERER.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

March 24, 1905.)

In the matter of the application of Louisa Schlotterer, an infant, etc., for an order to examine the Brooklyn & New York Ferry Company. No opinion. Motion for stay granted.
### **CHAPTER 503—COMMERCIAL REUSABLE IN-SPACE TRANSPORTATION**

Sec.
50301.
Definitions.
50302.
Loan guarantees for production of commercial reusable in-space transportation.
**Exhibit No. 32.1**

**Certification of CEO Pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350,As Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of DRS Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-Q for thequarter ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mark S. Newman, ChiefExecutive Officer of DRS Technologies, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1)         The Report fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)         Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of DRS Technologies, Inc.
| August 8, 2005 | /s/ MARK S.  NEWMAN                     |
|---------------------|-----------------------------------------|
|                     | Mark S. Newman*Chief Executive Officer* |

 

A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIREDBY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO DRSTECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND WILL BE RETAINED BY DRS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. ANDFURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.

47

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          34,052
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           2,700
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                21,350
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    134,810
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          32,514
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            32,555
<LOANS>                                        616,942
<ALLOWANCE>                                      6,883
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 883,500
<DEPOSITS>                                     708,853
<SHORT-TERM>                                    51,809
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              4,709
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        19,768
<OTHER-SE>                                      98,361
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 883,500
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 53,094
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                8,339
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 2,601
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                64,034
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              22,468
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              24,195
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           39,839
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,548
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 430
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 22,974
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 23,814
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      23,814
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,620
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.28
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.29
<LOANS-NON>                                      2,154
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,371
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  8,060
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 6,254
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    2,106
<RECOVERIES>                                     1,195
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                6,883
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             4,787
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          2,096
        

</TABLE>
### SUBCHAPTER II—ROADS AND TRAILS
EXHIBIT 32.1

WRITTEN STATEMENT

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with Quarterly Report of Comtech Group, Inc. and its
subsidiaries (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Jeffrey Kang, Chief Executive Officer of
the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                       |  |        |  |                        
|---------------------- |  | ------ |  | -----------------------
|Dated: August 14, 2006 |  | By:    |  | /s/ Jeffrey Kang       
|                       |  | Name:  |  | Jeffrey Kang           
|                       |  | Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/gpo90449 lost

The target resource for this PURL can no longer be traced. The following is a list of the targets this PURL was previously assigned to.

Powered by the Federal Depository Library Program.                A service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.
Editorial Note on Part 75
Editorial Note: The provisions of this part marked [Statutory Provision] appear in Title III of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969.

§ 75.1905 Dispensing of diesel fuel. ( a ) Diesel-powered equipment in underground coal mines may be refueled only from safety cans, from tanks on diesel fuel transportation units, or from stationary tanks.
( b ) Fuel that is dispensed from other than safety cans must be dispensed by means of— ( 1 ) Gravity feed with a hose equipped with a nozzle with a self-closing valve and no latch-open device;
( 2 ) A manual pump with a hose equipped with a nozzle containing a self-closing valve; or
( 3 ) A powered pump with: ( i ) An accessible emergency shutoff switch for each nozzle;
( ii ) A hose equipped with a self-closing valve and no latch-open device; and
( iii ) An anti-siphoning device.
( c ) Diesel fuel must not be dispensed using compressed gas.
( d ) Diesel fuel must not be dispensed to the fuel tank of diesel-powered equipment while the equipment engine is running.
( e ) Powered pumps shall be shut off when fuel is not being dispensed.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 9585 

To amended title 46, United States Code, to prohibit certain contracts for 

port operations and management, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 12, 2024 

Mrs. STEEL (for herself, Mr. CRAWFORD, Mr. MOYLAN, Mrs. BICE, Mr. CALVERT, Mr. WEBER of Texas, Mr. LAMALFA, Mrs. RADEWAGEN, Ms. 

MALLIOTAKIS, Mr. HUDSON, and Mr. RUTHERFORD) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amended title 46, United States Code, to prohibit certain 

contracts for port operations and management, and for 

other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Secure Our Ports Act 

5 of 2024’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 9585 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN CONTRACTS FOR PORT 

2 OPERATION AND MANAGEMENT. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 700 of 

4 title 46, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 

5 end the following: 

6 ‘‘§ 70015. Prohibition on certain contracts for port op7 eration and management 

8 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—An owner or operator of a facil9 ity for which an Area Maritime Transportation Security 

10 Plan is required under section 70103 of this title may not 

11 enter into a contract for the ownership, leasing, or oper12 ation of such facility with an entity that is— 

13 ‘‘(1) a Chinese, Russian, North Korean, or Ira14 nian state-owned enterprise; or 

15 ‘‘(2) a foreign entity for which any percentage 

16 is owned by a country listed in paragraph (1). 

17 ‘‘(b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the terms ‘Area 

18 Maritime Transportation Security Plan’, ‘facility’, and 

19 ‘owner or operator’ have the meanings given such terms 

20 in section 70101 of this title.’’. 

21 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The analysis for chap22 ter 700 of title 46, United States Code, is amended by 

23 inserting after the item relating to section 70014 the fol24 lowing: 

‘‘70015. Prohibition on certain contracts for port operation and management.’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 9775 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.9775

                     One Hundred Eighteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
         the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-four

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
  119 North Anderson Street in Elwood, Indiana, as the ``Officer Noah 
                 Jacob Shahnavaz Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. OFFICER NOAH JACOB SHAHNAVAZ POST OFFICE BUILDING.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 119 North Anderson Street in Elwood, Indiana, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Officer Noah Jacob Shahnavaz Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Officer 
Noah Jacob Shahnavaz Post Office Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
### §3958. Enforcement of storage liens

#### (a) Liens

#### (1) Limitation on foreclosure or enforcement

A person holding a lien on the property or effects of a servicemember may not, during any period of military service of the servicemember and for 90 days thereafter, foreclose or enforce any lien on such property or effects without a court order granted before foreclosure or enforcement.

#### (2) Lien defined

For the purposes of paragraph (1), the term "lien" includes a lien for storage, repair, or cleaning of the property or effects of a servicemember or a lien on such property or effects for any other reason.

#### (b) Stay of proceedings

In a proceeding to foreclose or enforce a lien subject to this section, the court may on its own motion, and shall if requested by a servicemember whose ability to comply with the obligation resulting in the proceeding is materially affected by military service—

(1) stay the proceeding for a period of time as justice and equity require; or

(2) adjust the obligation to preserve the interests of all parties.

The provisions of this subsection do not affect the scope of section 3953 of this title.

#### (c) Misdemeanor

A person who knowingly takes an action contrary to this section, or attempts to do so, shall be fined as provided in title 18, or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

(Oct. 17, 1940, ch. 888, title III, §307, as added Pub. L. 108–189, §1, Dec. 19, 2003, 117 Stat. 2851; amended Pub. L. 111–275, title III, §303(b)(7), Oct. 13, 2010, 124 Stat. 2878.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 537 of the former Appendix to this title prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

#### Amendments

2010—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 111–275 amended subsec. (c) generally. Prior to amendment, subsec. (c) related to penalties.

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

#### Effective Date

Section applicable to any case not final before Dec. 19, 2003, see section 3 of Pub. L. 108–189, set out as a note under section 3901 of this title.
#### § 77.901-1 Grounding resistor; continuous current rating.

The ground fault current rating of grounding resistors shall meet the “extended time rating” set forth in American Institute of Electrical Engineers Standard No. 32.
#### In the Matter of John R. Davison et al., Appellants, v. Hammond Robertson et al., Constituting the Board of Appeals of the Town of Bethlehem, et al., Respondents.

Motion to dismiss appeal denied, without costs, and without prejudice to a renewal thereof if the appeal is not perfected on or before July 1, 1962. Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ., concur.