alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Eduardo LOPEZ-RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-71668.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 4, 2008.*

Filed June 6, 2008.

Nora E. Milner, Esq., Milner & Markee, LLP, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.

*737Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration *&*Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Oil, Edward C. Durant, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before: THOMPSON, O’SCANNLAIN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Eduardo Lopez-Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order upholding an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision pretermitting his application for cancellation of removal.

An intervening change in the law requires us to remand on the question of whether Lopez-Ramirez established 10 years of continuous physical presence in the United States as he must in order to be eligible for cancellation of removal. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(A). In *Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales,*439 F.3d 614 (9th Cir.2006), we held that an administrative voluntary departure under threat of deportation breaks the accrual of continuous physical presence only where the alien is informed of the terms of the departure and “knowingly and voluntarily” accepts them. *Id.*at 619; *see also Tapia v. Gonzales,*430 F.3d 997, 1004 (9th Cir.2005). Although the record contains a form indicating that Lopez-Ramirez accepted voluntary departure less than 10 year’s before his application for cancellation of removal, the IJ pretermitted proceedings before taking any evidence relating to the question of whether such acceptance was knowing and voluntary. *See Ibarra-Flores,*439 F.3d at 619; *see also Gutierrez v. Mukasey,*521 F.3d 1114, 1117 (9th Cir.2008) (stating that the petitioner’s “own testimony established] that he was given a choice between deportation proceedings and leaving voluntarily, and that he chose the latter”).

Accordingly, we GRANT the petition for review and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with *Ibarra-Flores*and *Tapia.*

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### 852.237-74 Non-discrimination in Service Delivery.

As prescribed in 837.110-70(a), the Contracting Officer shall insert the following clause in solicitations and contracts:

# Non-Discrimination in Service Delivery (OCT 2019)

It is the policy of the Department of Veterans Affairs that no person otherwise eligible will be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination in the administration of VA programs and services based on non-merit factors such as race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability (physical or mental). By acceptance of this contract, the Contractor agrees to comply with this policy in supporting the program and in performing the services called for under this contract. The Contractor shall include this clause in all subcontracts awarded under this contract for supporting or performing the specified program and services. Accordingly, the Contractor shall ensure that each of its employees, and any subcontractor staff, is made aware of, understands, and complies with this policy.

(End of clause)

[84 FR 46456, Sept. 4, 2019]
#### In the Matter of 301 West 111th Owners, LLC, Appellant, v Division of Housing and Community Renewal, Respondent.

[776 NYS2d 55]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rosalyn Richter, J.), entered April 21, 2003, which dismissed this proceeding, brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, to annul respondent’s order, dated July 11, 2002, denying administrative review of respondent’s rent reduction order, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The determination to reduce the rent for failure to supply adequate heat for 11⁄2 months in the middle of winter had a rational basis (Administrative Code of City of NY § 26-514) and was not arbitrary and capricious *(Matter of 258 Riverside Dr. Co. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal,*172 AD2d 469 [1991]). The evidence before the Rent Administrator showed that the City’s Department of Housing Preservation and Development had inspected the tenant’s apartment and issued a violation for lack of adequate heat, and that the defective condition was not remedied by the time the rent reduction order was issued. Although petitioner subsequently submitted evidence showing the condition had been remedied, respondent did not receive that evidence until after the rent reduction order had been issued and after the deadline for responding to the tenant’s complaint.

We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Lerner, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.
##### 



Exhibit 31-3
  CERTIFICATION
    PURSUANT TO
    RULE 13a-14(a)
    AND
    15d-14(a) OF
    THE SECURITIES
    AND EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
    1.
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on
    Form 10-Q
    of Commonwealth Edison Company;2.
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
    statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
    necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
    circumstances under which such statements were made, not
    misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;3.
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
    financial information included in this report, fairly present in
    all material respects the financial condition, results of
    operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the
    periods presented in this report;4.
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are
    responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls
    and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
    Rules 13a-15(e)
    and
    15d-15(e))
    for the registrant and have:  (a)
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
    disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
    supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
    registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
    known to us by others within those entities, particularly during
    the period in which this report is being prepared;(b)
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
    controls and procedures and presented in this report our
    conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
    and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
    report based on such evaluation; and(c)
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
    internal control over financial reporting that occurred during
    the registrants second fiscal quarter that has materially
    affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
    registrants internal control over financial
    reporting; and  5.
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have
    disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal
    control over financial reporting, to the registrants
    auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board
    of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  (a)
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
    design or operation of internal control over financial reporting
    which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
    registrants ability to record, process, summarize and
    report financial information; and(b)
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
    other employees who have a significant role in the
    registrants internal control over financial reporting.  
       146
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








The
undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this Annual
Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2007 fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and the information contained in such report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Syntec Biofuel Inc.








/s/
      Janet Cheng
            
            Date:
      March 28, 2008Janet
      Cheng
              Director,
      CFO
October 2, 2015

Mr. Nic Summers

212 South Albert Street

Mount Prospects, IL 60056

Dear Mr. Summer s :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from

Part 21, and § § 61.3, 91.7(a), 91.9(b)(2), 91.103, 91.109, 91.119, 91.121, 91.151(a), 91.203(a)

&(b), 91.205(b), 91.215, 91.405(a), 91.407 (a)(1), 91.409(a)(2), and 91.417(a)(b) of Title 14,

Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It e xplains why we can not process your request and

what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can No t Process Your Request

We received your May 11, 2015, exemption request filed in D ocket No

. FAA− 20 15

− 2970

, but we are unable to process your request any further. Your petition does no t comply with the

requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must

send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html . This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal

Aviation A dministration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemptio n.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267

- 2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure s34
#### In re CITIZENS’ TRUST CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

March 2, 1906.)

In the matter of the application of the Citizens’ Trust Company to be designated as a depositary for moneys deposited in court.

No opinion. Order of reference made to Norman S. Dike, Esq.
#### § 1032.54 Equivalent price.

See § 1000.54.
#### WHYTE, Respondent, v. REYNOLDS, Appellant, et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 22, 1906.)

Action by Andrew Whyte against William H. Reynolds and others.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
#### Emil La Guardia, Respondent, v. John Genelli, Appellant.

Motion by appellant for a stay, pending appeal, denied. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
#### Stanley J. Lassa, appellee, v. Paul S. Bergamini, appellant.

Gen. No. 34,625.

Opinion filed March 24, 1931.

Charles J. Russell, for appellant.

Blum & Jacobson, for appellee; Reuben S. Flacks, of counsel.

Mr. Presiding Justice Scanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.
Exhibit 32.1
                                                                    ------------

          Certification pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b) of the
               Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. 1350

                                   ----------

In connection with the annual report on Form 10-KSB of ELECTRONIC SENSOR
TECHNOLOGY, INC. (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006
(the "Report"), I, Teong C. Lim, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, hereby certify 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 13(a) or
15(d) 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: April 2, 2007                               /s/ Teong C. Lim
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                   Teong C. Lim
                                                   President and Chief Executive
                                                   Officer
                                                   (Principal Executive Officer)
Independent Accountant's Consent



The Board of Directors
FloridaFirst Bancorp, Inc.
Lakeland, Florida:


We consent to the  incorporation by reference in the registration  statements on
Form S-8 pertaining to the FloridaFirst  Bancorp,  Inc.'s 1999 Stock Option Plan
and FloridaFirst  Bank Restricted  Stock Plan filed March 2, 2001  (Registration
Statement No. 333-56420), and FloridaFirst Bancorp, Inc.'s 2002 Stock Option and
FloridaFirst  Bancorp,  Inc.'s 2002  Restricted  Stock Plan filed March 19, 2002
(Registration  Statement No.  333-84516) of our report dated  November 15, 2002,
relating to the consolidated  statements of financial  condition of FloridaFirst
Bancorp,  Inc. as of September 30, 2002 and 2001,  and the related  consolidated
statements of earnings,  stockholder's  equity and comprehensive income and cash
flows for each of the years in the three-year  period ended  September 30, 2002,
which report  appears in the September  30, 2002,  annual report on Form 10-K of
FloridaFirst Bancorp, Inc.


/s/HACKER, JOHNSON & SMITH PA

HACKER, JOHNSON & SMITH PA
Tampa, Florida
December 23, 2002
June 10, 2015 

 

 

Mr. John Wiseman 

10420 N. McKinley Drive 

Tampa, FL 33612 

Dear Mr. Wiseman: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It 

explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your May 19, 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-

1761), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does 

not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request 

any further, you must send us all of the following: 

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division 

Enclosure
SERVED: June 17, 2013 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

AVIONICS MASTERS, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA-2013-0288 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2012S0190209) has been assigned to 

Administrative Law Judge J.E. Sullivan. All future pleadings and other communications 

regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, and the other 

persons on the attached Service List. 

Chief Administrative La 

Attachment - Service List 
SERVICE LIST 

' ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0001 

ONE COPY 

Christopher R. Stevenson, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office ofthe Regional Counsel, AS0-7 

Southern Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P. 0. Box 20636 

Atlanta, GA 30320 

TEL: 404-305-5200 

FAX: 404-305-5223 

Charles L. Hunt, Jr. 

Vincent Sortino, Accountable Manager 

Avionics Masters, Inc., Respondent 

1001 West Cypress Creek Road, Suite 309 

Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309 

TEL: 954-491-2580 

FAX: 954-491-5279 

Honorable Judge J.E. Sullivan, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2132 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

FDMS No. FAA-2013-0288 

(Civil-Penalty Action) 

I Service was by u.s. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W._, Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, 

DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

-2-
#### 908.7101 Motor vehicles.
EXHIBIT 10.2
                                                                   ------------

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Annual Report of Head N.V. (the "Company") on Form
20-F for the period ending December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned hereby
certify that to the best of our knowledge:

     1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.

Date:      March 26, 2003           By: /s/  Johan Eliasch
                                        ---------------------------------

                                               Johan Eliasch
                                               Chief Executive Officer,
                                               Chairman of the Management Board

Date:      March 26, 2003           By: /s/  Ralf Bernhart
                                        ---------------------------------

                                               Ralf Bernhart
                                               Chief Financial Officer,
                                               Member of the Management Board


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Head N.V. and will be retained by Head N.V. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### § 1006.15 Fluid milk product.

See § 1000.15.
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch on Law Enforcement Responses to Opioid Overdoses (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

# Talking With Your Teens About Sex: Going Beyond “the Talk”

Research shows that parents have a great deal of influence over their teens’ decisions about sex (PDF, 4 pages). This fact sheet provides information and resources for parents that can help them facilitate conversations with their teens about sex and healthy relationships.

http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/protective/pdf/talking_teens.pdf?utm_source=Find%20Youth%20Info&utm_medium=Federal%20Links&utm_campaign=Reports-and-Resources
#### 9.104 Standards.
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:? U.S. DOT/FAA - Notice of proposed rulemaking Extension