alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. JULIO ADRIAN M A

NZANO, De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 15-50496

D.C . No. 3:14-c r-03278-AJB M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Anthony J. B atta glia , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d April 11, 2017 ** B e fore : GOULD, C LIFTON, a nd HUR W ITZ, C i rc uit Judge s. Julio Adria

n M anz ano a

ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt a nd c ha lle nge s the 42-m onth se nte n c e im pose d following his guilty -ple a c onvic tion for im porta tion of m e tha

m phe tam ine , in viola

t ion of 21 U.S.C
. §§ 952, 960. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e a ffirm
. 

# F IL ED APR 20 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).M anz ano c onte nds tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d

by de ny ing his re q

ue st for a
m inor role a d

justm e nt unde r U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.2. He argue s tha t the c ourt ignore d se ve ra l fa c tors ide ntifie d in thec om m e nta ry to the m i nor role Guide line , re lie d on im prope r fa c tors, a

n d e ffe c tive l y

tre ate d sim

ple c ourie rs a s c at e goric a lly ba rre d from re c e iving a

role a d justm e nt. R e vie wing de novo, se e Unite d State s v . Quinte ro-Le

y v a , 823 F.3d 515, 522 (9th C ir. 2016), we c onc lude tha t the distric t c ourt did not err. The re c ord re fle c ts the distric t c ourt a pplie d the c orre c t le ga l sta nda rd and ga ve am ple c onside ration to the

fa c t ors liste d in thec om

m e nta ry . Se e U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.2 c m

t. n.3(A), (C ). The c ourt wa s not re quire d to “ tic k off” the fa c t ors to show tha

t it ha d c onside re d the m . Se e Unite d State s v . C arty , 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th C ir. 2008) (e n ba nc ). M ore ove r, the c ourt prope rly c om pa re d M an z a no’ s c ulpa

bility to tha t of his c o-pa

rtic ipa nts in theoffe nse and did not re ly on a ny im prope r c onside rations. Se e Quinte ro-Le y v a , 823 F.3d a

t 523. Fina lly , the re c ord shows tha

t the c ourt unde rstood tha t M anz ano wa s e ligible for a m inor role a djustm e nt, but c onc lude d tha t the fa c ts did not support a n a djustm e nt. AFFIRM E D.

1 5 - 5 0 4 9 6 2
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.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - [ER-FRL-9054-7]

      ( print page 1497)    
*Responsible Agency:*                     Office of Federal Activities, General Information 202-564-5632 or                     *https://www.epa.gov/​nepa.*

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)

Filed December 23, 2020 10 a.m. EST Through January 4, 2021 10 a.m. EST

Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

## Notice

                    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at:                     *https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/​cdx-enepa-public/​action/​eis/​search.*

*EIS No. 20210000, Draft, BOEM, NY,*                     South Fork Wind Farm and South Fork Export Cable Project, Comment Period Ends: 02/22/2021, Contact: Michelle Morin 703-787-1722.                

Dated: January 4, 2021.

Cindy S. Barger,

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 2021-00116 Filed 1-7-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
1228.106-70 Execution and administration of bonds. ( a ) The contracting officer shall notify the surety within 30 days of the contractor's failure to perform in accordance with the terms of the contract.
( b ) When a partnership is a principal on a bond, the names of all the members of the firm shall be listed in the bond following the name of the firm, and the phrase “a partnership composed of.” If a principal is a corporation, the state of incorporation must also appear on the bond.
( c ) Performance or payment bond(s), other than an annual bond, shall not predate the contract to which it pertains.
( d ) Bonds may be filed with the original contract to which they apply, or all bonds can be separately maintained and reviewed quarterly for validity. If separately maintained, each contract file shall cross-reference the applicable bonds.
1203.502-2 Subcontractor kickbacks. ( g ) The same procedures contained in 1203.203 shall be followed for reporting a violation of 41 U.S.C. chapter 87, Kickbacks.
#### 1009.7000 Scope of subpart.

This subpart prescribes the IRS policies and procedures for performing a tax check on the apparent successful offeror to determine eligibility to receive an award.
The U.S. Department of Education (ED) relies on accrediting agencies (accreditors) to oversee higher education quality. Only 

institutions and programs accredited by a federally recognized accreditor can provide students with access to federal student aid,

including Pell Grants and student loans. Periodically, a subset of the more than 60 federally recognized accreditors come up for

review by ED and the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI). 

Here is a snapshot of how the accreditor recognition process works. 

ED REQUESTS FEDERAL RECOGNITION APPLICATIONS 

ACCREDITORS SUBMIT APPLICATIONS 

ED ANNOUNCES NACIQI MEETING & INVITES COMMENT 

ED REVIEWS APPLICATIONS & DEVELOPS DRAFT STAFF REPORTS 

ED SENDS DRAFT STAFF REPORTS TO ACCREDITORS FOR RESPONSE 

ED SENDS FINAL STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS TO NACIQI, ACCREDITORS & PUBLIC 

NACIQI HOLDS MEETING & MAKES ITS OWN RECOMMENDATION 

ED SENIOR OFFICIAL MAKES RECOGNITION DECISION 

ACCREDITOR MAY APPEAL DECISION TO SECRETARY OF EDUCATION 

NACIQI meetings and a notice inviting public comment are announced several months before the meeting 

Federal Register notices are available 

From: ED

FWD: NACIQI

here 

For each accreditor, ED staff review the accreeditor’s application, public comments, and other info 

ED staff assess the accreditor’s compliance and produce a preliminary (draft) report 

Accreditors have 30 days to respond to the draft report 

Accreditors may share additonal documentation to demonstrate compliance 

ED reviews accreditors’ responses and compiles final reports and recommendations 

Final staff reports for current and past meetings are here 

ED, accreditors, and public commenters provide input to NACIQI members 

NACIQI makes separate recommendations for each accreditor up for review 

Accreditors must demonstrate compliance with the Secretary of Education’s Criteria for Recognition 

Learn more about the criteria here 

Accreditor 

Process 

Federal Recognition

Both staff and NACIQI recommendations, as well as NACIQI proceedings, are considered 

Senior official’s decision comes within 90 days of the meeting 

Accreditors have until 10 days after decision to give notice of appeal, and 30 days to file appeal 

Secretary has no deadline by which to decide the appeal 

Each accreditor must be reviewed at least every five years once recognized 

NACIQI currently meets twice per year to review agencies and advise ED 

7 

DAYS 

before NACIQI 

meeting 

90 

DAYS 

after NACIQI 

meeting 

10 & 30 

DAYS 

after 

decision
### §950aaa. Purpose

The purpose of this chapter is to encourage and improve telemedicine services and distance learning services in rural areas through the use of telecommunications, computer networks, and related advanced technologies by students, teachers, medical professionals, and rural residents.

(Pub. L. 101–624, title XXIII, §2331, as added Pub. L. 104–127, title VII, §704, Apr. 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 1108.)

#### Termination of Section

For termination of section by section 1(b) of Pub. L. 102–551, see Termination of Chapter note set out below.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 950aaa, Pub. L. 101–624, title XXIII, §2331, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 4017, provided purposes of chapter, prior to the general amendment of this chapter by Pub. L. 104–127.

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

#### Termination of Chapter

Pub. L. 102–551, §1(b), Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 4100, as amended by Pub. L. 107–171, title VI, §6203(b), May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 421; Pub. L. 110–234, title VI, §6201(c), May 22, 2008, 122 Stat. 1206, and Pub. L. 110–246, §4(a), title VI, §6201(c), June 18, 2008, 122 Stat. 1664, 1967; Pub. L. 113–79, title VI, §6201(b), Feb. 7, 2014, 128 Stat. 856; Pub. L. 115–334, title VI, §6102(b), Dec. 20, 2018, 132 Stat. 4728, provided that: "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, chapter 1 of subtitle D of title XXIII of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 950aaa et seq.), including the amendments made by this section [enacting section 950aaa–5 of this title and amending section 950aaa–4 of this title], shall be effective until September 30, 2023."

[The authorities provided by each provision of, and each amendment made by, Pub. L. 115–334, as in effect on Sept. 30, 2023, to continue, and authorities to be carried out, until the later of Sept. 30, 2024, or the date specified in the provision of, or amendment made by, Pub. L. 115–334, see section 102(a) of Pub. L. 118–22, set out in an Extension of Agricultural Programs note under section 9001 of this title.]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Consolidated
Capital Properties III 1996 Year-End 10-KSB and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such 10-KSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000317331
<NAME> CONSOLIDATED CAPITAL PROPERTIES III
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           3,603
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       48
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          13,818
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,198
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   8,999
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                          4,200
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,410
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     8,999
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,227
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,534
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 646
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,842
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    17.20<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James Williams, Appellant.

In a *comm nobis*proceeding, defendant appeals from an order of the County Court, Kings County, dated September 15, 1959, which denied, without a hearing, Ms application to vacate a judgment of said court, rendered October 16, 1957 after trial, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, and imposing sentence. Order affirmed. No opinion. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Hill, JJ., concur.
#### Eric Roberson et al., Appellants, v Harry P. Keogh, Respondent.

In a consolidated negligence action to recover damages for personal *817injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered July 27, 1977, which is in favor of defendant and against them, upon a jury verdict. Judgment affirmed, with costs. A review of the record indicates that no error was committed in the admission into evidence of so much of the police report as diagrammed the position of the vehicles after the collision. We have reviewed the other contentions of the plaintiffs and find them to be without merit. Shapiro, J. P., Cohalan, Margett and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted), Gene W.
Ray, the Chief Executive Officer of The Titan Corporation (the "Company"), and Mark W. Sopp, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



|Dated: August 9, 2004                             |  |                                                    
|------------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------
|                                                  |  |                                                    
|/s/GENE W. RAYGene W. Ray
Chief Executive Officer |  | /s/MARK W. SOPPMark W. Sopp
Chief Financial Officer
|                                                  |  |                                                    

---



QuickLinks
#### 1416.405 Contract clauses.

The BPC, without the power of redelegation, is authorized to approve an award fee clause to use in a solicitation when a cost-plus-award-fee contract is contemplated.
#### Mark Kyler, Appellant-Respondent, v. United States Trotting Association, Respondent-Appellant, and Buffalo Trotting Association, Inc., Respondent.

Order unanimously modified to permit plaintiff leave to serve an amended complaint against Buffalo Trotting Association, Inc., within 20 days after service of a copy of the order with notice of entry thereof, and as modified order affirmed and the judgment entered thereon vacated, without costs of these appeals to any party. Memorandum: It is clear plaintiff cannot recover against Buffalo Trotting Association, Inc., in tort for procuring a breach of contract. Counsel argued that the complaint was broad enough to sustain a cause of action for breach of contract based upon a novation. In the interest of justice we grant leave to serve an amended complaint. (Appeal from judgment of Brie Special Term dismissing the complaint as to Buffalo Trotting Association and also from order dismissing the complaint; also cross appeal by United States Trotting Association from that part of the order which grants plaintiff leave to serve an amended complaint *743as against it.) Present—'Williams, P. J., Bastow, Henry, Noonan and Del Veechio, JJ.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CESAR MOISES SANCHEZ,

Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 14-71670

Agency No. A094-301-658

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 27, 2016**

Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Cesar Moises Sanchez, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review 

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an 

immigration judge’s 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 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

OCT 4 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 14-71670 

motion to reopen. Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 678 (9th Cir. 2011). We 

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

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Sanchez’s motion to 

reopen as untimely, where it was filed more than four years after the filing 

deadline, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1), and he did not provide sufficient evidence 

of changed country conditions to invoke the filing deadline exception, see 8 C.F.R. 

§ 1003.23(b)(4)(i). Sanchez’s contention that a change in law makes him eligible 

for asylum and thus invokes the exception to the filing deadline is unavailing. See

Azanor v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1013, 1022 (9th Cir. 2004) (asserting a change of 

law, rather than a change in conditions in the country of removal, is an improper 

expansion of the exception).

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary decision not to 

reopen proceedings sua sponte, and Sanchez fails to raise a colorable constitutional 

claim or question of law that would invoke our jurisdiction. See Mejia-Hernandez 

v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011); cf. Bonilla v. Lynch, No. 12-

73853, 2016 WL 3741866, at *10 (9th Cir. July 12, 2016) (“[T]his court has 

jurisdiction to review Board decisions denying sua sponte reopening for the limited 

purpose of reviewing the reasoning behind the decisions for legal or constitutional 
3 14-71670 

error.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
#### Henry Kehrig et al., Appellants, v. John P. Koshney et al., Respondents.

Order denying motion to punish for contempt unanimously affirmed, without costs of this appeal to any party. Order resettling judgment, insofar as appealed from, unanimously reversed in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and action remitted to Special Term for further proceedings in accordance with memorandum. Memorandum: This action was purportedly settled during trial. The stipulation placed upon the record attempted to establish a boundary line between the properties of the respective parties. The stipulation, however, was ambiguous, confused and ineffective to accomplish the purpose of settling the dispute between the parties. Subsequently plaintiff sought to resettle the judgment entered upon the stipulation. Plaintiffs appeal from the resettled judgment and the order directing such resettlement. In our opinion, the motion should have been referred to the Justice who presided at the trial when the stipulation was made. Upon the present record, it well may be that upon such referral the Trial Justice may not be able to resettle the judgment with an intelligent result in view of the ambiguous stipulation. In such event consideration should be given as to whether the original judgment should be vacated and the trial proceed *de novo.*Upon the present record we are unable to pass upon this question. The order denying the application to punish for contempt should be affirmed. (Appeal from part of an order of Monroe Special Term resettling judgment; also appeal from order of same court and Justice denying plaintiffs’ motion to punish defendant John P. Koshney for contempt.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Halpern and McClusky, JJ.
Returning Interest Earned on Federal Funds

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Payment Management System – Program Support Center 

(PSC) has recently updated information addressing the return of interest earned from Federal grant drawdowns. 

Here is summary of this process, followed by information about how to obtain more details and who to contact 

regarding this notice. For non-interest refunds, please refer to the G5 refunds guidance or call the Hotline at 888-

336-8930. 

1. The preferred method to return interest is through Automated Clearing House (ACH) Direct Deposit or Fedwire. 

a. When returning interest through ACH Direct Deposit or Fedwire, grantees must include the following in their 

return transaction: 

· PMS Account Number (PAN). NOTE: The PAN is the same series of alpha-numeric characters used for payment 

request purposes (e.g.: C1234G1). 

· PMS document number.

· The reason for the return (e.g. interest, part interest part other, etc.).

· An explanation stating that the refund is for interest payable to the Department of Health and Human Services, 

and the grant number(s) for which the interest was earned.

b. U.S. Department of Education grantees are generally located and operate domestically and return interest 

domestically. Below is PSC ACH account information for interest returned domestically. For international ACH 

interest returned, account information is available at: Returning Funds/Interest. 

· PSC ACH Routing Number is: 051036706

· PSC DFI Accounting Number: 303000

· Bank Name: Credit Gateway - ACH Receiver

· Location: St. Paul, MN

c. Service charges may be incurred from a grantee’s financial institution when a Fedwire to return interest is 

initiated. For FedWire returns, Fedwire account information is as follows: 

· Fedwire Routing Number: 021030004

· Agency Location Code (ALC): 75010501

· Bank Name: Federal Reserve Bank

· Treas NYC/Funds Transfer Division

· Location: New York, NY

2. Interest may be returned by check using only the U.S. Postal Service; however, returning interest via check may 

take 4-6 weeks for processing before a check payment may be applied to the appropriate PMS account. 

Interests returned by check are to be mailed to: 

HHS Program Support Center

PO Box 979132

St. Louis, MO 63197

A brief statement explaining the nature of the return must be included. 

To return interest on a grant not paid through the PMS, make the check payable to the Department of Health and 

Human Services, and include the following with the check:

 
· An explanation stating that the refund is for interest

· The name of the awarding agency

· The grant number(s) for which the interest was earned

· The return should be made payable to: Department of Health and Human Services.

For detailed information about how to return interest, please visit the PSC Retuning Funds/Interest page at: 

Returning Funds/Interest 

Questions about this notice may be directed to the Education Program Contact found in Box 3 of the Grant Award 

Notification issued by the U.S. Department of Education.
#### Concetta Redino, Appellant, v. Nicholas J. Redino et al., Respondents.

Motion granted and time for argument of appeal extended to and including February 1961 Term of court.
#### 1370.102 Pre-bid/pre-proposal conference and site visit.

Insert provision 1352.270-71, *Pre-Bid/Pre-Proposal Conference and Site Visit,* in solicitations where a pre-proposal conference will be held. The provision is optional for construction and may be modified as necessary. The contracting officer shall include or delete the paragraph regarding site visits.