alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
###### Editorial Note on Part 3404

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 3404 appear at 76 FR 4808, Jan. 27, 2011.

#### § 3404.5 Denials.

If the FOIA Coordinator determines that a requested record is exempt from mandatory disclosure and that discretionary release would be improper, the FOIA Coordinator shall give written notice of denial in accordance with § 1.7(a) of this title.
#### § 29.3524 Injury.

Hurt or impairment from any cause except the fungus or bacterial diseases which attack tobacco in its cured state. (See definition of Damage, § 29.3514.) Injury to tobacco may be caused by field diseases, insects, or weather conditions; insecticides, fungicides, or cell growth inhibitors; nutritional deficiencies or cesses; or improper fertilizing, harvesting, curing, or handling. Injured tobacco includes dead, burned, hail-cut torn, broken, frostbitten, sunburned, sunscalded, scorched, fire-killed, bulk-burnt, steam-burnt, house-burnt bleached, bruised, discolored, or deformed leaves; or tobacco affected by wildfire rust, frogeye, mosaic, root rot, wilt, black shank, or other diseases. (See Rule 15, § 29.3616.)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANDREW QUONAH JONES,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 16

- 70018

Agency No. A040

- 207

- 744

MEMORANDUM *

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

Submitted May 24, 2017 **

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

Andrew Quonah Jones , a native and citizen of Liberia

, and a citizen of The

Neth erlands , petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)

order denying his motion to reconsider and reopen removal proceedings. Our

jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the

* 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

JUN 2 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 70018

denial of a motion to reconsider and reopen

. Cano

- Merida v. INS , 311 F.3d 960,

964 (9th Cir. 2002). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for re view.

The BIA did not abus e its discretion in denying Jones’s motion to re consider

as untimely, where he filed it more than 30 days after the final order of removal

.

See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2)

.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen, where

the evidence, including evidence regarding Jones’s efforts to marry, was not

previously unavailable and did not establish prima facie eligibility for relief

. See 8

U.S.C. § 1229a(C)(7); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1 ) ; Bhasin v. Gonzales , 423 F.3d 977,

987 (9th Cir. 2005) ( new evidence in support of a motion to reopen must not have

been available at the time of the hearing).

Contrary to Jones’s contentions, the BIA did not ignore or improperly

analyze his contentions regarding his conviction for solicitation to possess

marijuana for sale

. See Najmabadi v. Holder , 59 7 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010);

Olivas

- Motta v. Holder , 716 F.3d 1199, 1200 (9th Cir. 2013) (the agency is

confined to the record of conviction in determining whether an alien has been

convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of Jones’s motion to the

extent it concerns the same hardship grounds as his original application for

cancellation of removal

. See Fernandez v. Gonzales , 439 F.3d 592, 60 0

- 01 (9th3 16

- 70018

Cir. 2006) (8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars jurisd iction over a motion to reopen

where the question presented is essentially the same discretionary issue originally

decided on the merits).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DE NIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 23(a)

                            [Saw and Co. Letterhead]


                  REPORT OF INDEPENDENT CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS



TO: DTI TECHNOLOGY SDN. BHD.

We have audited the consolidated balance sheet of DTI TECHNOLOGY SDN. BHD.
incorporated in Malaysia and referred to as the "Company" as of January 31,
2002 and 2001 and the related statements of income, stockholders' equity and
changes in financial position for each of the two years ended January 31, 2002.
These financial statements have been prepared in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles in Malaysia. These financial statements are the
responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express as
opinion on these financial statements based on our audit.

We have conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards in Malaysia which are substantially the same as those followed in the
United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to
obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of
material misstatement. An audit also includes assessing the accounting
principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as
evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our
audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in
all material respects, the financial position of DTI TECHNOLOGY SDN. BHD. as of
January 31, 2002 and 2001 and the results of their operations and changes in
their financial position for each of the two years ended January 31, 2002 in
conformity with generally accepted accounting principles in Malaysia.




[Signature]

SAW & CO.
FIRM NUMBER: AF 0666
CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS



MALAYSIA
March 25, 2002
§ 3431.23 Service to Federal government in emergency situations. ( a ) The Secretary may enter into agreements of 1 year duration with veterinarians who have service agreements for such veterinarians to provide services to the Federal Government in emergency situations, as determined by the Secretary, under terms and conditions specified in the agreement.
( b ) Pursuant to a service agreement under this section, the Secretary shall pay an amount, in addition to the amount paid, as determined by the Secretary and specified in the agreement, of the principal and interest of qualifying educational loans of the veterinarians. This amount will be provided in the RFA.
( c ) Agreements entered into under this paragraph shall include the following: ( 1 ) A veterinarian shall not be required to serve more than 60 working days per year of the agreement.
( 2 ) A veterinarian who provides service pursuant to the agreement shall receive a salary commensurate with the duties and shall be reimbursed for travel and per diem expenses as appropriate for the duration of the service.
§ 29.9405 Issuance of marketing area opening date and selling schedules by the Secretary. ( a ) The Secretary shall review the recommendations of the Flue-Cured Tobacco Advisory Committee and based upon such recommendations and the basis therefor and such other information as may be available to him, shall specify the geographic areas to be encompassed by specific marketing areas, set the opening dates for sale within the marketing areas and issue the selling schedules for designated and undesignated tobacco. The inspection of flue-cured tobacco shall be in accordance with said schedules.
( b ) The Flue-Cured Tobacco Advisory Committee shall recommend modifications in the opening date and marketing schedule during the flue-cured tobacco marketing season as may be warranted by changes in marketing conditions and the Secretary shall act thereon in the same manner as approving the initial opening date and marketing schedules.
[39 FR 17754, May 20, 1974, as amended at 39 FR 30476, Aug. 23, 1974]
#### New York Kandy Kard Corp., Respondent-Appellant, v. Barton’s Candy Corporation, Appellant-Respondent, and Stephen Klein et al., Respondents.

Order entered June 14, 1968, unanimously modified on the law, without costs and without disbursements, to the extent of granting summary judgment to defendant-appellant on the first counterclaim, directing an assessment thereof, and staying execution on 'that assessment and of the assessment under the second counterclaim pending the trial of the first and second causes of action in the complaint, and otherwise affirmed. Order entered August 2, 1968, denying stay of the action pending disposition pursuant to GPLR 3031-3037 unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. The first counterclaim did not comply with the permissive procedure provided by CPLR 3016 (subd. [f]) in that there was insufficient specificity of the items claimed to have been sold and delivered. However, on the motion for summary judgment, defendant-appellant did supply detailed invoices breaking down each item listed in the complaint (Exhibit D to affidavit of Klein, Feb. 16, 1968), as to which there were no denials in plaintiff’s surreply (affidavit of 'Shapiro, March 19, 1968). Indeed, as to some of these items, purchases and delivery were admitted. Summary judgment should, therefore have been granted and assessment directed. Because of uncertainty, however, as to the outcome of the main trial on the tort and breach of contract issues, it is proper to have execution on this assessment, as well as that directed as to reasonable value of use and occupancy of the held-over premises, delayed pending that trial. Though the contract between the parties provided for use of simplified procedures *514(CPLR 3031-3037) as to any controversy arising thereunder, defendant-appellant participated in the litigation to the extent that Special Term properly regarded that conduct as a waiver of such provision. Further, -the issues under the first cause, sounding in tort, certainly do not come under the clause providing for simplified procedure, and it would be wasteful, inefficient, and, indeed, a complicated rather than simple procedure to try that issue alone and report to simplified procedures for the issue of breach of contract. The method herein approved for disposition of the main case and the assessments is actually the simplest procedure possible in the circumstances. Concur—Stevens, P. J., Tilzer, McGivern, Markewich and Nunez, JJ.
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of MagnaChip Semiconductor LLC (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 28,
2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert J. Krakauer, President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to
§906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(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.



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Robert J. Krakauer               
|Robert J. Krakauer                   
|President and Chief Financial Officer
|November 12, 2008
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

Notice is hereby given that Escalate Capital Partners, SBIC I, L.P., 300 W. 6th Street, Suite 2250, Austin, TX 78701, a Federal Licensee under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (“the Act”), in connection with the financing of a small concern, has sought an exemption under Section 312 of the Act and Section 107.730, Financings which Constitute Conflicts of Interest of the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.730). Escalate Capital Partners, SBIC I, L.P. proposes to provide debt security financing to WhaleShark Media, Inc., 515 S. Congress Avenue, Suite 700, Austin, TX 78704. The financing is contemplated to provide capital for operations and contingent payments to prior acquisitions.

The financing is brought within the purview of § 107.730(a)(1) of the Regulations because AV-EC Partners I, L.P., an Associate of Escalate Capital Partners, SBIC I, L.P., owns more than ten percent of WhaleShark Media, Inc. Therefore, this transaction is considered a financing of an Associate requiring an exemption.

Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit written comments on the transaction within fifteen days of the date of this publication to the Associate Administrator for Investment, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416.

Dated: November 17, 2010.

Sean Greene,

Associate Administrator for Investment.

[FR Doc. 2010-29603 Filed 11-23-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
#### In the Matter of Louis Rivera, Also Known as Byrdell Sumner, Petitioner, v Aloysius J. Melia, Respondent.

— Application, pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously denied, the cross motion granted and the petition dismissed, without costs and without disbursements. No opinion. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Sandler, Sullivan, Bloom and Markewich, Respondents.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

RALPH GILBERT, GLORIA GILBERT,

MICHELLE TORGERSON, EDWIN

TORGERSON, MELDA BITTORF,

BEVERLY COX, WILLIAM COX,

KIMBERLY MILES, CLEA FOCKLER,

JOHN FOCKLER, LINDA ECKERT,

SCOTT ECKERT, WILLIAM STRINE,

KENNY JASINSKI, DENNIS JASINSKI,

KATHRYN JASINSKI, JOSEPH

JASINSKI, PATRICIA UNVERZAGT,

MEGAN JACOBS, BARBARA

UNVERZAGT, DONNA PARR, JEFF

FODEL, WENDY FODEL, JENNIFER

JASINSKI, JOHN JASINSKI, JUDY

QUEITZSCH, JEAN FRY, RICK

MCSHERRY, JOHN FREESE, DONNA

LYNN FREESE, JEFF VAN VOORHIS,

SUSAN LEE FOX, TERRENCE

FANCHER AND DONNA FANCHER,

 Respondents

 v.

SYNAGRO CENTRAL, LLC, SYNAGRO

MID-ATLANTIC, GEORGE PHILLIPS,

HILLTOP FARMS AND STEVE TROYER,

 Petitioners

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 358 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 9th day of October, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

GRANTED. The issue is:

Did the Superior Court incorrectly interpret the Pennsylvania [RTFA] by

requiring a jury trial to determine that the land application of biosolids falls

within the Act’s definition of a “normal agricultural operation,” which was

contrary to the Act and this Court’s precedent that statutes of repose and

statutory interpretation present questions of law for resolution by courts,

not juries?

M.D. Appeal Dkt.

121 2014
MCELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLP 

ALBERT J. PUCCIARELLI 

Direct dial: (201) 493-3718 

apucciarelli@mdmc-law.com 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Docket Management System 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

40 West Ridgewood Avenue 

Ridgewood, NJ 07450 

(201) 445-6722 

FACSIMILE (201) 445-5376 

November 20,2015 

Re: Amendment to Exemption No. 11311 issued pursuant to Section 333 ofthe FAA 

Reform Act and Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations in Regulatory Docket 

No. FAA-2014-1055 

Dear Sirs/Madams: 

Next Generation Aviation Services, LLC ("Next Generation") was issued Exemption 

number 11311 (hereinafter the "Exemption") using the DJI S 1 000+ Premium Unmanned Aircraft 

System. The Exemption had been amended earlier this year to include the DJI Inspire 1 model 

T600 quadcopter. At this time, Next Generation respectfully requests that the Exemption be 

further amended to permit its use of an additional unmanned aircraft system ("UAS") platform, 

specifically, the Freefly Alta. The Freefly Alta falls within all the operating limitations in our 

approved Exemption and therefore Next Generation will also be using the same Operations and 

Safety Manual submitted as confidential documents under the original approved Exemption. 

Attached hereto and submitted as a confidential document is the Freefly Alta User 

Manual that will be used in conjunction with Next Generation's Operations and Safety Manual to 

maintain full compliance with the terms of the Exemption. 

As this is a second amendment to an existing Exemption, it is Next Generation's position 

that good cause for the amendment exists and that notice of the requested amendment does not 

have to be published in the Federal Register. All operations of the additional UAS will be in full 

compliance with the terms of the Exemption. 

AJP:gdm 

Cc: Frank R. Galella, III 

NEW JERSEY NEW YORK PENNSYLVANIA CONNECTICUT MASSACHUSETTS COLORADO DELAWARE
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2430 

To adjust the boundaries of Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park 

to include Hinchliffe Stadium, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 19, 2013 

Mr. PASCRELL (for himself, Mr. ANDREWS, Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN, Mr. GARRETT, Mr. HOLT, Mr. LANCE, Mr. LOBIONDO, Mr. PALLONE, Mr. 

PAYNE, Mr. RUNYAN, Mr. SIRES, and Mr. SMITH of New Jersey) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural 

Resources 

A BILL 

To adjust the boundaries of Paterson Great Falls National 

Historical Park to include Hinchliffe Stadium, and for 

other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Hinchliffe Stadium 

5 Heritage Act of 2013’’. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2430 IH

1 SEC. 2. PATERSON GREAT FALLS NATIONAL HISTORICAL 

2 PARK BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT. 

3 Section 7001 of the Omnibus Public Land Manage4 ment Act of 2009 (16 U.S.C. 410lll) is amended as fol5 lows: 

6 (1) In subsection (b)(3)— 

7 (A) by striking ‘‘The Park shall’’ and in8 serting ‘‘(A) The Park shall’’; 

9 (B) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) 

10 through (G) as clauses (i) through (vii), respec11 tively; and 

12 (C) by adding at the end the following: 

13 ‘‘(B) In addition to the lands described in 

14 subparagraph (A), the Park shall include the 

15 approximately 6 acres of land containing 

16 Hinchliffe Stadium and generally depicted as 

17 the ‘Boundary Modification Area’ on the map 

18 entitled ‘Paterson Great Falls National Histor19 ical Park’, numbered T03/120,155, and dated 

20 March 2013, which shall be administered as 

21 part of the Park in accordance with subsection 

22 (c)(1).’’. 

23 (2) In subsection (b)(4), by striking ‘‘The Map’’ 

24 and inserting ‘‘The Map and the map referred to in 

25 paragraph (3)(B)’’. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### § 29.2399 Rule 8.

A lot of tobacco meets the specifications of a grade when it is not lower in any degree of any element of quality than the minimum specifications of such grade.
Exhibit 32.1
                                  CERTIFICATION

                                   PURSUANT TO

        SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE


I, Uwe Eberle, the President and principal executive officer of Man Investments
(USA) Corp., the Managing Member of Man-AHL 130, LLC ("Man-AHL 130"), certify
that (i) the Quarterly Report of Man-AHL 130 on Form 10-Q for the period ending
December 31, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in
such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of Man-AHL 130.


Date:  February 14, 2007
--------------------------
                                   /s/ Uwe Eberle
                                   --------------
                                   Uwe Eberle
                                   President








                                      E-4
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. Case No: 3:96cr80/LAC 

STEVEN ANTHONY GRAHAM

ORDER

The defendant has filed a Notice of Appeal of the court’s order denying his motion

to vacate district court order denying motion to reopen habeas judgment as a result of

fraud upon the court. (Doc. 123). To the extent he seeks the issuance of a certificate of

appealability, because the defendant has not made a substantial showing of the denial of

a constitutional right, his request for a certificate of appealability is DENIED.

Defendant has also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc.

125). Because the court finds that the appeal is not taken in good faith, defendant is not

entitled to so proceed, and his motion is denied. Defendant shall pay the $255.00

appellate filing fee within thirty days.

DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of November, 2005.

s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:96-cr-00080-LC-CJK Document 129 Filed 11/01/05 Page 1 of 1
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsOptimum shape of a blunt forebody in hypersonic flowThe optimum shape of a blunt forebody attached to a symmetric wedge or cone is determined. The length of the forebody, its semi-thickness or base radius, the nose radius and the radius of the fillet joining the forebody to the wedge or cone are specified. The optimum shape is composed of simple curves. Thus experimental models can be built readily to investigate the utilization of aerodynamic heating for boundary layer control. The optimum shape based on the modified Newtonian theory can also serve as the preliminary shape for the numerical solution of the optimum shape using the governing equations for a compressible inviscid or viscous flow.Document ID19900004035Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsMaestrello, L.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA., United States)*Ting, L.*(New York Univ. New York., United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateDecember 1, 1989Subject CategoryAerodynamicsReport/Patent NumberICASE-89-51NAS 1.26:181955NASA-CR-181955Accession Number90N13351Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS1-18605Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900004035.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024