alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel, January 26, 2021, 11:00 a.m. to January 26, 2021, 03:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD, 20852 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on December 08, 2020, 85 FR 79018.                

This notice is being amended to change the date of this one-day meeting to February 24, 2021. The meeting time remains the same. The meeting is closed to the public.

Dated: January 19, 2021.

Natasha M. Copeland,

Deputy Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2021-01560 Filed 1-25-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### 22.1900 Scope of subpart.

This subpart prescribes policies and procedures to implement Executive Order (E.O.) 14026, Increasing the Minimum Wage for Federal Contractors, which requires minimum wages for certain workers; Department of Labor (DOL) implementing regulations are found at 29 CFR part 23. This E.O. superseded E.O. 13658; DOL implementing regulations for E.O. 13658 are found at 29 CFR part 10.

[87 FR 4121, Jan. 26, 2022]
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.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration #16842 and #16843; Louisiana Disaster Number LA-00106]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Louisiana (FEMA-4577-DR), dated 1/12/2021. *Incident:*
                         Hurricane Zeta. *Incident Period:*
                         10/26/2020 through 10/29/2020.
 DATES: Issued on 01/12/2021. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         03/15/2021.
                        ( print page 6405) *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         10/12/2021.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 01/12/2021, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Parishes (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans):*
                     Jefferson, Lafourche, Orleans, Plaquemines, Saint Bernard, Terrebonne. *Contiguous Parishes (Economic Injury Loans Only):* Louisiana: Assumption, Saint Charles, Saint James, Saint Mary, Saint Tammany, St John The Baptist, Tangipahoa. The Interest Rates are: PercentFor Physical Damage:Homeowners With Credit Available Elsewhere
2.375Homeowners Without Credit Available Elsewhere
1.188Businesses With Credit Available Elsewhere
6.000Businesses Without Credit Available Elsewhere
3.000Non-Profit Organizations With Credit Available Elsewhere
2.750Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.750For Economic Injury:Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without Credit Available Elsewhere
3.000Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.750
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 168428 and for economic injury is 168430. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008) Cynthia Pitts, Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.


[FR Doc. 2021-01177 Filed 1-19-21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8026-03-P
400 MARYLAND AVE. S.W., WASHINGTON, DC 20202-2600

www.ed.gov

The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness

by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES 

July 9, 2020

SENT VIA EMAIL – CONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT REQUESTED 

Honorable Randy Watson 

Commissioner of Education 

Kansas State Department of Education 

900 Southwest Jackson Street 

Topeka, Kansas 66612 

rwatson@ksde.org 

Dear Commissioner Watson: 

This letter grants final approval under Section 421(b) of the General Education Provisions Act 

for grant award H027A180031 and H173A180034. 

The Department received your June 10, 2020 request on behalf of the Kansas State Department

of Education for a waiver extending the period of availability for Federal fiscal year (FFY) 2018 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part B grant award funds. 

With this approval, the FFY 2018 IDEA Part B grant award funds will be available for 

obligation through September 30, 2021 and may be liquidated through December 30, 2021. 

Please contact your Office of Special Education Programs State Lead, Mohamed Soliman, at 

Mohamed.Soliman@ed.gov if you have any questions. 

Sincerely, 

/s/

Mark Schultz 

Commissioner, Rehabilitation Services Administration 

Delegated the authority to perform the functions and 

duties of the Assistant Secretary for the Office of Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services 

cc: State Director
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

FEBRUARY 28, 2007

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 05-15246

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 04-00610-CR-T-24-TBM

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

ALEJANDRO GONGORA ORTIZ, 

a.k.a. Cano, 

a.k.a. Chano, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

(February 28, 2007)

Before BIRCH, BLACK and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
2

Daniel J. Fernandez, retained counsel for Alejandro Gongora Ortiz in this

direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the

appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct.

1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals

that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because

independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit,

counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Ortiz’s conviction and sentence

are AFFIRMED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

JEFF FOSTER, )

 ) 

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, ) Case No. 12-cv-03130

)

v. ) Honorable Mary M. Rowland

)

PNC BANK NA d/b/a PNC MORTGAGE, ) 

 )

Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff. ) 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW

APPEARANCE OF LAUREN E. DREIFUS

Pursuant to Local Rule 83.17, Lauren E. Dreifus (“Ms. Dreifus”) hereby moves for leave 

to withdraw her appearance as counsel for Plaintiff, Jeff Foster (“Plaintiff”). In support thereof, 

Ms. Dreifus states as follows:

1. At the time of filing her appearance on June 18, 2018, in this matter on behalf of 

Plaintiff, Ms. Dreifus was employed by the law firm of Boodell & Domanskis, LLC.

2. As of January 21, 2022, Ms. Dreifus is no longer employed by Boodell & 

Domanskis, LLC.

3. Max A. Stein of Boodell & Domanskis, LLC will remain as counsel of record for

Plaintiff.

4. Ms. Dreifus’s withdrawal from this matter will not prejudice Plaintiff or any other 

party.

5. For all the above reasons, the Court should grant counsel leave to withdraw her 

appearance on behalf of Plaintiff.

Case: 1:12-cv-03130 Document #: 219 Filed: 04/11/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:4571
2

WHEREFORE, Lauren E. Dreifus, the undersigned counsel, requests that this Court enter 

an order withdrawing her appearance in this matter as counsel for Plaintiff.

Dated: April 11, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Lauren E. Dreifus

Lauren E. Dreifus, Esq. (#6317983)

GOLAN CHRISTIE TAGLIA LLP

70 W. Madison Street, Suite 1500

Chicago, Illinois 60602

(312) 263-2300

ledreifus@gct.law

Case: 1:12-cv-03130 Document #: 219 Filed: 04/11/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:4572
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Lauren E. Dreifus, an attorney herein, hereby certify that I caused a copy of Motion to 

Withdraw to be served upon the following by CM/ECF on this 11th day of April, 2022 addressed 

as follows:

James M. Crowley, Esq.

John F. Sullivan, Esq.

Plunkett Cooney, PC

221 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1550

Chicago, Illinois 60601

jcrowley@plunkettcooney.com

jsullivan@plunkettcooney.com

Marcel C. Duhamel, Esq. 

Lindsay Doss Spillman, Esq.

Vorys Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP 

200 Public Square, Suite 1400 

Cleveland, OH 44114 

mcduhamel@vorys.com

ldspillman@vorys.com

Max A. Stein, Esq. 

Boodell & Domanskis, LLC 

1 North Franklin Street, Suite 1200 

Chicago, Illinois 60606 

mstein@boodlaw.com

/s/ Lauren E. Dreifus

Case: 1:12-cv-03130 Document #: 219 Filed: 04/11/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:4573
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

DOUGLAS M. THIGPEN, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) No. 12 C 1642

) (03 CR 1084)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Respondent. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Douglas Thigpen (“Thigpen”) has just submitted a partly

typed, partly hand-printed document that he has captioned “Claim

for Return of Property, and Motion To Render Property to Power of

Attorney.” Although that self-prepared document states that the

filing was made “pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C.S. §1738 of the

Federal Civil Procedure,” that statute clearly has no relevance

to Thigpen’s stated purpose of obtaining the return of certain

property that was assertedly taken from him at the time of his

arrest more than eight years ago (he lists the date as

November 13, 2003). But in any event, Thigpen goes on to state

that he is in the process of using the Freedom of Information Act

to “determin[e] the actual whereabouts of the property,” and the

only request that he has made is that his motion be filed “and

that the proceedings be stayed until further notice” (emphasis in

original).

Under those circumstances, because there are no

“proceedings” of any nature before this Court, so that there is

Case: 1:12-cv-01642 Document #: 4 Filed: 03/09/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:6
nothing to be stayed, it is pointless for the Clerk’s Office to

have opened a civil case number for Thigpen’s claim. This action

(if it can be termed an action at all) is therefore ordered

dismissed, without prejudice of course to the possibility that

some related matter may arise in the future that is within this

Court’s jurisdiction.

________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: March 9, 2012

2

Case: 1:12-cv-01642 Document #: 4 Filed: 03/09/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:7
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 47 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 47

     Directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make a 
               correction in the enrollment of H.R. 6157.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 18, 2018

  Mr. Shelby submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
                        considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
     Directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make a 
               correction in the enrollment of H.R. 6157.

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That, in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 6157, the Clerk of the House 
of Representatives shall make the following corrections:
            (1) Amend the long title so as to read: ``Making 
        consolidated appropriations for the Departments of Defense, 
        Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related 
        Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2019, and for 
        other purposes.''.
            (2) In section 101(4) of division C, strike ``31'' and 
        insert ``141''.
                                 <all>
```
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 1-7 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 1 of 21 PageID #:421
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 1-7 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 2 of 21 PageID #:421
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 1-7 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 3 of 21 PageID #:421
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 1-7 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 4 of 21 PageID #:421
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 1-7 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 5 of 21 PageID #:421
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 1-7 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 6 of 21 PageID #:421
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 1-7 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 7 of 21 PageID #:421
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 1-7 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 8 of 21 PageID #:421
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 1-7 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 9 of 21 PageID #:421
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 1-7 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 10 of 21 PageID #:421
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 1-7 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 11 of 21 PageID #:421
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 1-7 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 12 of 21 PageID #:421
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 1-7 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 13 of 21 PageID #:421
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 1-7 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 14 of 21 PageID #:421
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 1-7 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 15 of 21 PageID #:421
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 1-7 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 16 of 21 PageID #:421
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 1-7 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 17 of 21 PageID #:421
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 1-7 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 18 of 21 PageID #:421
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 1-7 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 19 of 21 PageID #:421
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 1-7 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 20 of 21 PageID #:421
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 1-7 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 21 of 21 PageID #:421
#### Beckje Moskowitz et al., Respondents-Appellants, v. Emar Service Corp., Doing Business as Utopia Auto Laundry, Respondent, and Rudolph Goldberg, Appellant. (Action No. 1.) Samuel Cohen et al., Respondents-Appellants, v. Morris Rosen, Doing Business as Utopia Auto Laundry, et al., Respondents, and Rudolph Goldberg, Appellant. (Action No. 2.) Rose Sherman, as Administratrix of the Estate of Irving Sherman, Deceased, et al., Respondents-Appellants, v. Rudolph Goldberg, Appellant, and Emar Service Corp., Doing Business as Utopia Auto Laundry, Respondent. (Action No. 3.)

In three consolidated actions to recover damages for injuries to person and property, for medical expenses and for loss of services, the parties cross-appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered October 19, 1959, after a jury trial, upon a verdict in favor of the several plaintiffs against defendant Goldberg, and in favor of defendants Rosen and Emar Service Corp. (doing business as Utopia Auto Laundry), dismissing as against them the plaintiffs’ several complaints. Defendant Goldberg appeals from the whole judgment. All the plaintiffs appeal from the judgment insofar as it dismisses their respective complaints against defendants Rosen and Emar Service Corp. Judgment, insofar as it is against defendant Goldberg and in favor of each of the plaintiffs, other than the plaintiff Sadie Cohen, affirmed, without costs. Judgment, insofar as it is against defendant Goldberg and in favor of plaintiff Sadie Cohen (in Action No. 2), reversed on the facts and, as to said plaintiff, the action is severed and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event, unless, within 20 days after entry of the order hereon, said plaintiff shall stipulate to reduce the verdict in her favor from $100,000 to $75,000; in which event the judgment in her favor, as so reduced, is affirmed, without costs. Appeal by defendant Goldberg, insofar as it is taken from the portions of the judgment which dismiss the plaintiffs’ respective complaints against defendants Rosen and Emar Service Corp., dismissed. As to such portions of the judgment the defendant Goldberg is not a party aggrieved. On plaintiffs’ appeal: Judgment, *822insofar as it dismisses their respective complaints against defendants Rosen and Emar Service Corp., affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, the verdict in favor of the plaintiff .Sadie Cohen is excessive. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
Opinion filed September 26, 2013

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-13-00256-CV

__________

DAVID MICHAEL BROOKS, Appellant

V.

WAL-MART STORES, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 35th District Court

Brown County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1210368

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

David Michael Brooks, Appellant, attempts to appeal from a May 28, 2013 

summary judgment rendered in favor of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Upon reviewing the 

documents on file in this case, this court wrote the parties and informed them that 

the motion for new trial appeared to be untimely, thereby making the notice of 

appeal untimely. We requested that Appellant respond and show grounds to 
2

continue the appeal. Appellant filed a response urging that his notice of appeal 

was timely pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a)(4) because he timely filed a request 

for findings of fact and conclusions of law. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 297. Because Rule 

26.1(a)(4) is not applicable in this case, we dismiss the appeal for want of 

jurisdiction pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). 

The judgment from which Appellant attempts to appeal is a summary 

judgment. Findings of fact and conclusions of law are not proper when the appeal 

is from a summary judgment. Linwood v. NCNB Tex., 885 S.W.2d 102, 103 (Tex. 

1994). Thus, a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law does not extend 

the time in which to file a notice of appeal. Id.; Scott v. Wood Cnty. Comm’rs 

Court, No. 12-13-00037-CV, 2013 WL 776660 (Tex. App.—Tyler Feb. 28, 2013, 

no pet.) (mem. op.). 

In his response to our letter, Appellant did not address the timeliness of his 

motion for new trial as requested by this court. Our records reflect that the motion 

for new trial was filed on June 28, 2013, which was thirty-one days after the date 

that the trial court signed the order granting summary judgment. The motion for 

new trial was filed one day late. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 329b(a). Absent a timely filed 

motion for new trial, the notice of appeal was due to be filed on June 27, 2013, 

thirty days after the summary judgment was signed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1. 

However, Appellant did not file his notice of appeal until August 26, 2013, ninety 

days after the summary judgment was signed. Appellant’s notice of appeal was, 

therefore, untimely. 

Absent a timely notice of appeal, this court is without jurisdiction to 

consider this appeal. See Wilkins v. Methodist Health Care Sys., 160 S.W.3d 559, 

563 (Tex. 2005); Garza v. Hibernia Nat’l Bank, 227 S.W.3d 233 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.); see also Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 
3

617 (Tex. 1997). Because Appellant did not timely file a notice of appeal, we have 

no jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. 

We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. 

PER CURIAM

September 26, 2013

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Willson, J.
#### Martin Kummer, Plaintiff, v. Creative Management Associates, Ltd., et al., Defendants. Creative Management Associates, Ltd., Respondent, v. Martin Kummer et al., Appellants.

Order, entered on April 28, 1964, upholding the legal sufficiency of the first, second, third, fourth and fifth counterclaims, unanimously affirmed, with $30 costs and disbursements to abide the event. (See *Foley*v. *D’Agostino,*21 A D 2d 60, *passin.)*Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KAI XU,
Petitioner,

v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 14

- 73487
Agency No. A089

- 971

- 330

MEMORANDUM *

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

Submitted October 25, 2016 **

Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN , Circuit Judges.

Kai Xu , a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection und er the Convention Against Torture

* 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 argu ment. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

NOV 1 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 14

- 73487

(“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards
governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act,

Shrestha v. Holder , 590 F.3d 1034, 1039

- 40 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny in part
and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination

based on inconsistencies as to Xu’s employment in Chin a and his reason for not
requiring medical treatment

. See id . at 1048 (adverse credibility determination
supported under the totality of circumstances). Xu ’s explanations to the agency do
not compel a contrary result. S ee Lata v. INS , 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000)

.
Xu’s contention that the agency did not consider evidence is not supported by the

record

. In the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Xu ’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1156
(9th Cir. 2003).

Xu ’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony the
agency found not credible, and the record does not otherwise compel the

conclusion t hat it is more likely than not Xu would be tortured if returned to China.

Se e Shrestha , 590 F.3d at 104 8

- 4 9.3 14

- 73487

We do not reach Xu’s due process contentions regarding the IJ because he

did not raise them to the BIA. S ee Barron v. Ashcroft , 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.
2004)

.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part

.