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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RAMON ROBERTO HUERTA-FLORES,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 10-73389

Agency No. A092-444-014

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted April 9, 2014

San Francisco, California

Before: TALLMAN and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges, and DUFFY, District Judge.**

Petitioner Ramon Roberto Huerta-Flores is an alien charged with being

removable for having been convicted of a controlled substances offense. See 8

U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). The BIA applied the categorical approach and found

him removable on the basis of his Arizona conviction for conspiracy to sell a

FILED

JUL 10 2014

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 Honorable Kevin Thomas Duffy, United States District Judge for

the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
narcotic drug under Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) § 13-3408(A)(7). In light

of Ragasa v. Holder, No. 12-72262, — F.3d —, 2014 WL 1661491 (9th Cir. Apr.

28, 2014), amended by 2014 WL 2498950 (9th Cir. June 4, 2014), we grant

Huerta-Flores’s petition for review and remand for further proceedings consistent

with this disposition.

In Ragasa we were faced with the same mismatch between the federal and

state lists of controlled substances present here: the inclusion of benzylfentanyl and

thenylfentanyl in the state list but not in the federal list. See id. at *2 (comparing

Hawaii list with federal list). Compare A.R.S. § 13-3401(20), with 21 C.F.R.

§§ 1308.11–.15. The court held that the petitioner was not categorically removable

under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) because of this mismatch. Ragasa, 2014 WL

1661491, at *2. For the same reason, Huerta-Flores’s petition must be granted.

Unlike Ragasa, it appears that documents in the record of this case may

reflect the substances involved in Huerta-Flores’s conviction. The BIA’s decision

did not discuss application of the modified categorical approach. We leave that

question to its consideration in the first instance on remand. Huerta-Flores may

present his arguments against application of the modified categorical approach to

the BIA.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

2
§ 1005.81 Payments to the transportation credit balancing fund. ( a ) On or before the 12th day after the end of the month (except as provided in § 1000.90 of this chapter), each handler operating a pool plant and each handler specified in § 1000.9(c) of this chapter shall pay to the market administrator a transportation credit balancing fund assessment determined by multiplying the pounds of Class I producer milk assigned pursuant to § 1005.44 by $0.30 per hundredweight or such lesser amount as the market administrator deems necessary to maintain a balance in the fund equal to the total transportation credits disbursed during the prior June—February period. In the event that during any month of the June-February period the fund balance is insufficient to cover the amount of credits that are due, the assessment should be based upon the amount of credits that would had been disbursed had the fund balance been sufficient.
( b ) The market administrator shall announce publicly on or before the 23rd day of the month (except as provided in § 1000.90) the assessment pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section for the following month.
[79 FR 25005, May 2, 2014; 79 FR 26591, May 9, 2014; 89 FR 6403, Feb. 1, 2024]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                 5
<MULTIPLIER>                          1,000
       
<S>                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>          3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>      DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>           MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                5,975
<SECURITIES>                         45,935
<RECEIVABLES>                        13,096
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          0
<PP&E>                                    0
<DEPRECIATION>                            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       65,167
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     0
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                                447
<OTHER-SE>                          (24,122)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         65,167
<SALES>                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          0
<CGS>                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        672
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          17
<INCOME-TAX>                            405
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     422
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                            422
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                          0.01

        

</TABLE>
#### 970.1504-1 Price analysis.
§ 1.189 Delegations of authority. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the Secretary of Agriculture delegates to the Judicial Officer authority to take final action on matters pertaining to the Act in proceedings covered by these rules. The Secretary by order may delegate authority to take final action on matters pertaining to the Act in particular cases to other subordinate officials or bodies.
( b ) ( 1 ) The Secretary of Agriculture delegates to the Director of the National Appeals Division authority to take final actions on matters pertaining to the Act for proceedings under 7 CFR part 11.
( 2 ) With respect to proceedings covered under § 1.183(b)(1)(ii) of this part, the Board of Contract Appeals is authorized by statute (41 U.S.C. 607) to take final action.
[68 FR 27435, May 20, 2003]
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)

## Breadcrumb

            -           Protecting Student Privacy While Using Online Educational Services: Model Terms of Service      

# Protecting Student Privacy While Using Online Educational Services: Model Terms of Service

This Model Terms of Service (PDF, 9 pages) document is intended to assist schools and school districts in implementing the PTAC-issued guidance, Protecting Student Privacy While Using Online Educational Services: Requirements and Best Practices (PDF, 14 pages). The Model Terms of Service helps school officials evaluate terms of service agreements from providers of online educational services and mobile applications. 

http://ptac.ed.gov/sites/default/files/Student%20Privacy%20and%20Online%20Educational%20Services%20%28February%202014%29.pdf?utm_source=FindYouthInfo.gov&utm_medium=Federal-Links&utm_campaign=Reports-and-Resources
EXHIBIT 15








August 8, 2001










FirstEnergy Corp.
76 South Main Street
Akron, OH  44308

Gentlemen:

We are aware that FirstEnergy Corp. has incorporated by
reference in its Registration Statements No. 333-40065,
No. 333-48587, No. 333-48651, No. 333-58279, No. 333-65409,
No. 333-75985, No. 333-46444, No. 333-56094, No. 333-62886 and
No. 333-81183 its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2001,
which includes our report dated August 8, 2001 covering the
unaudited interim financial information contained therein.
Pursuant to Regulation C of the Securities Act of 1933, that
report is not considered a part of the registration statements
prepared or certified by our firm or a report prepared or
certified by our firm within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of
the Act.

                                 Very truly yours,




                                 ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
#### Harry J. Fireman, appellee, v. Oliver F. Smith et al., defendants, on appeal of Oliver F. Smith, appellant.

Gen. No. 34,579.

Opinion filed March 24, 1931.

Ossian Cameron and Edward H. S. Martin, for appellant.

Wolfsohn & Fireman, for appellee; Arthur Chittick, of counsel.

Mr. Justice Kerner

delivered the opinion of the court.
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)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;c)
    
    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; andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
  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.
 Date:    May 7, 2010
    /s/ Michael J. BourgMichael J. BourgPresident, Chief Operating Officer
and Treasurer (Principal Financial Officer)
#### 9904.404-10 [Reserved]
#### § 1131.1 General provisions.

The terms, definitions, and provisions in part 1000 of this chapter apply to this part 1131. In this part 1131, all references to sections in part 1000 refer to part 1000 of this chapter.
#### 927.200 Scope of subpart.

When consulting 48 CFR part 27, subpart 27.2 of the FAR, consider “research, development, and demonstration” to replace the phrase “research and development” or “R&D,” for the purposes of DOE actions.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  Page 10 of 14


                                                                   EXHIBIT 99(c)

                        KEYCORP STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2000-B
                              OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE

Bank One, National Association             Banker's Trust Company
One Bank One Plaza, Suite 0126             Four Albany Street
Chicago, Illinois 60670                    New York, New York  10006
ATTN: Corporate Trust Administration       ATTN: Corporate Trust & Agency Group
                                           Structured Finance
Phone:(312) 407-0192                       Phone: (212) 250-6501
Fax:(312) 407-1708                         Fax: (212) 250-6439

Key Bank USA, National Association         MBIA Insurance Corporation
800 Superior Ave, 4th Floor                113 King Street
Cleveland, OH   44114                      Armonk, New York 10504
ATTN:  Senior Vice President               Attn:  Data Administration
Key Education Resources                    Phone: (914) 765-3772
Phone:(216) 828-9342                       Fax: (914) 765-3810
Fax: (216) 828-9301


Pursuant to Section 3.08 of the Subservicing Agreement between Key Bank USA,
National Association as Master Servicer and Great Lakes Educational Loan
Services, Inc., as Subservicer, dated as of September 1, 2000 (the "Agreement"),
the undersigned hereby certifies that (i) a review of the activities of the
Subservicer from the inception of the Trust through December 31, 2000, and of
its performance under the Agreement has been made, and (ii) to the best of the
undersigned's knowledge, based on the review, the Subservicer has fulfilled all
its obligations under the Agreement throughout such period

                                   Great Lakes Educational Loan Services, Inc.,
                                   Subservicer
Date:    3/13/01                   By:/s/ Michael J. Noack
     ------------------               --------------------
                                   Name: Michael J. Noack
                                   Title:    Secretary
#### In the Matter of Edward Siira. Elaine Cappadona, Formerly Known as Elaine Siira, Appellant; Brian Siira, Respondent.

[776 NYS2d 892]

In a proceeding to change an infant’s name, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, J.), dated August 14, 2003, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Civil Rights Law § 63 authorizes a court to grant a petition to change a child’s name where it is satisfied that “there is no reasonable objection to the change of name proposed,” and that “the interests of the infant will be substantially promoted by the change.” Contrary to the mother’s contention, the Supreme Court’s determination that the proposed name change would not be in the best interests of the child is supported by the rec*804ord. The father’s assertions that he has visited the child on a regular basis since the parties’ divorce, made all required child support payments, and developed a close relationship with the child, were essentially uncontroverted by the mother. Furthermore, while it is undisputed that the mother enrolled the child in school under his stepfather’s surname, her concern over the potential embarrassment the child may experience if required to use his legal name at school does not provide a sufficient basis to override the father’s reasonable objection to the petition. Nor does it support a conclusion that changing the child’s surname to that of his stepfather would promote his best interests (see *Matter of John Phillip M.-P,*307 AD2d 318 [2003]; *Githens v Van Orden,*177 Misc 2d 918 [1998], *affd*256 AD2d 1247 [1998]). Smith, J.P., Krausman, Crane and Mastro, JJ., concur.
#### 970.2303 Hazardous materials identification and material safety.
§ 1005.10 Producer-handler. *Producer-handler* means a person who: ( a ) Operates a dairy farm and a distributing plant from which there is route disposition in the marketing area, and from which total route disposition and packaged sales of fluid milk products to other plants during the month does not exceed 3 million pounds;
( b ) Receives no fluid milk products, and acquires no fluid milk products for route disposition, from sources other than own farm production;
( c ) Disposes of no other source milk as Class I milk except by increasing the nonfat milk solids content of the fluid milk products received from own farm production; and
( d ) Provides proof satisfactory to the market administrator that the care and management of the dairy animals and other resources necessary to produce all Class I milk handled, and the processing and packaging operations are the producer-handler's own enterprise and are operated at the producer-handler's own risk.
( e ) Any producer-handler with Class I route dispositions and/or transfers of packaged fluid milk products in the marketing area described in § 1131.2 of this chapter shall be subject to payments into the Order 1131 producer settlement fund on such dispositions pursuant to § 1000.76(a) and payments into the Order 1131 administrative fund provided such dispositions are less than three million pounds in the current month and such producer-handler had total Class I route dispositions and/or transfers of packaged fluid milk products from own farm production of three million pounds or more the previous month. If the producer-handler has Class I route dispositions and/or transfers of packaged fluid milk products into the marketing area described in § 1131.2 of this chapter of three million pounds or more during the current month, such producer-handler shall be subject to the provisions described in § 1131.7 of this chapter or § 1000.76(a).
[64 FR 47960, Sept. 1, 1999, as amended at 71 FR 25498, May 1, 2006; 75 FR 21160, Apr. 23, 2010]
611.602 General. ( c ) ( 1 ) Authority to use the DPAS is limited to the following circumstances: ( i ) The contract or order must be placed with a U.S. firm; and,
( ii ) The contract or order must be in support of the DOSESPP, which consists of work involving the security of overseas posts. The DOSESPP includes a wide range of elements of both physical and technical security, such as: ( A ) New Embassy/Consulate Compound (NEC/NCC) Program. This program involves the construction of new secure Embassies, Consulates, and related facilities, as well as renovations of newly acquired buildings when used as alternatives to the construction of new secure buildings.
( B ) Physical security upgrade. This includes installation of forced entry/ballistic resistant (FE/BR) windows and doors, walls/fences, active anti-ram barriers, bollards (concrete and steel barriers), and related items.
( C ) Forced entry/ballistic resistant (FE/BR) components. This includes doors, windows, and related facilities and items that can provide the necessary time to protect Government personnel from attack.
( D ) Armored vehicles. This includes passenger vehicles with appropriate armoring.
( E ) Entry control and building surveillance equipment. This includes walk-through metal detectors, X-ray equipment, surveillance cameras, explosive detection equipment, and other features to enhance the protection of Government personnel and facilities.
( 2 ) DOC has assigned the following priority rating to DOSESPP contracts or orders: DO-H8.
#### Arthur C. Shafer et al., Appellants, v. Auburn Plastics, Inc., Respondent.

Order and resettled order unanimously reversed, with $25 costs and disbursements and motion denied, without costs. Memorandum: The transfer of the place of trial in this action from New York County to Cayuga County was improper. The Winfield Baird Foundation was the original claimant and a corporation with its principal place of business located in New York

*885County. The assignment of its claim against the defendant herein entitled its assignees, the plaintiffs herein, under section 184-a of the Civil Practice Act to lay the venue of this action in New York County. (Appeal from order and resettled order of Onondaga Special Term granting the motion to change the place of trial from County of New York to County of Cayuga.) Present — Bastow, J. P., Goldman, Halpern, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
EXHIBIT 15








May 14, 1999









FirstEnergy Corp.
76 South Main Street
Akron, OH  44308

Gentlemen:

We are aware that FirstEnergy Corp. has incorporated by reference 
in its Registration Statements No. 333-40065, No. 333-48587, No. 
333-48651, No. 333-58279, No. 333-65409 and No. 333-75985 its 
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 1999, which includes 
our report dated May 14, 1999 covering the unaudited interim 
financial information contained therein. Pursuant to Regulation C 
of the Securities Act of 1933, that report is not considered a 
part of the registration statements prepared or certified by our 
firm or a report prepared or certified by our firm within the 
meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.

                                Very truly yours,




                                ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
#### Rik Shaw Associates, Ltd., Appellant, v. Bronzini Shops, Inc., et al., Respondents.

Order, entered on June 29, 1964, granting defendants’ cross motions to dismiss the complaint and denying plaintiff’s motion for the *770appointment of a receiver in this action under the Bulk Sales Act (Personal Property Law, § 44), unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, with $30 costs and disbursements to appellant, the motion granted, with $10 costs, and the cross motions denied. The amount of plaintiff’s claim was known to defendant Bronzini of New York, Inc,, who received bills therefor totalling $13,968,94. The validity thereof was acknowledged by the payment of $3,500 on account. This constituted an account stated. The obligation was not contingent although unliquidated at the time of bulk sale. It was liquidated at the time of commencement of this action by the judgment against the debtor. Plaintiff was a creditor within the meaning of the Bulk Sales Act. *(Royal Ind. Co.*v. Ginsberg, 157 Misc, 507, 510-511,) Concur — Breitel, J. P., Yalente, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.