alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Gil Delatorre VELARDE, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-71034.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 20, 2007.*

Filed Aug. 24, 2007.

See also 216 Fed.Appx. 702.

John S. Rogers, Esq., John S. Rogers & Associates, Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioner.

NVL-Distriet Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Las Vegas, NV, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Manuel A. Palau, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, KLEINFELD and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision denying petitioner’s motion to reopen as untimely.

The regulations state a motion to reopen in any case previously the subject of a final decision by the BIA must be filed no later than 90 days after the date of that decision. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). The BIA issued its final order on March 25, 2004. The motion to reopen was filed on January 24, 2007. Because petitioner’s motion was filed over two years past the deadline, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen on that ground. *See Iturribarria v. INS,*321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003).

Accordingly, respondent’s unopposed motion for summary denial of the petition is granted because the questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. *See United States v. Hooton,*693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). This petition for review is denied.

*458All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c), shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

CASE NUMBER: 2:06-cr-202-WKW 

 vs.

EUGENE L. CLECKLER

DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE

The defendant hereby requests that the government:

X A. Permit defendant to inspect and copy or photograph all statements of the defendants as

provided in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 16(a)(1)(A).

 

X B. Furnish defendant with a copy of defendant’s prior criminal record as provided in the

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 16(a)(1)(B).

X C. Permit defendant to inspect and copy or photograph all documents and tangible objects

as provided in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 16(a)(1)(C).

X D. Permit defendant to inspect and copy or photograph all results or reports of examinations,

test, and experiments as provided in the Federa Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule

16(a)(1)(D). 

X E. Provide defendant with all exculpatory or otherwise favorable information as povided in

cases such as Brady v. Maryland, Giles v. Maryland, Giglio v. United States & Williams

v. Dutton.

X F. Furnish defendant with a copy of all statements of government witnesses as provided in

18 U.S.C. 3500.

 G. (Special discovery requests)

 

Date signed: August 19, 2006 /s/ Ronald R. Brunson 

Signature of counsel

Date served: August 19, 2006 Ronald R. Brunson 

Name Typed

McCord & Brunson 

Firm Name

2126 Morris Avenue Birmingham, Alabama 35203 

Address

205-252-2100 205-252-2187 

Phone Fax

Case 2:06-cr-00202-WKW-CSC Document 23 Filed 08/18/2006 Page 1 of 1
#### § 1021.312 [Reserved]
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA
F OURTH D ISTRICT

JEROME TITA , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 18

- 3019

[ March 21, 2019 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Bernard I. Bober

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 09

- 5390CF10A

.
Robert D. Devin of Robert D. Devin, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

N o appearance for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed

.

G ROSS , M AY and K UNTZ , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

 )

 v. ) CR. NO. 3:06cr204-MEF

 )

HENRY ERIK YAPIAS )

UNITED STATES’ NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

Comes now the undersigned Assistant United States Attorney for the Middle District of

Alabama, Nathan D. Stump, and enters his notice of appearance on behalf of the United States in the

above-styled cause.

Respectfully submitted this the 12 day of September, 2007. th

LEURA G. CANARY

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

/s/Nathan D. Stump

NATHAN D. STUMP

Assistant United States Attorney

131 Clayton Street

Montgomery, AL 36104

Phone: (334) 223-7280

Fax: (334) 223-7135

E-mail: nathan.stump@usdoj.gov

 

Case 3:06-cr-00204-MEF-CSC Document 47 Filed 09/12/2007 Page 1 of 2
-2-

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

 )

 v. ) CR. NO. 3:06cr204-MEF

 )

HENRY ERIK YAPIAS )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on September 12, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing with the

Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the

following: Sydney Albert Smith, Esq.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Nathan D. Stump

NATHAN D. STUMP

131 Clayton Street

Montgomery, AL 36104

Phone: (334)223-7280

Fax: (334)223-7135

E-mail: nathan.stump@usdoj.gov

Case 3:06-cr-00204-MEF-CSC Document 47 Filed 09/12/2007 Page 2 of 2
1449.402-3 Procedure for default.       In addition to the requirements of FAR 49.402-3(g), the notice of termination shall contain instructions regarding the disposition of any Government property in the possession of the contractor, and, in the case of construction contracts, materials, appliances, and structures that may be on the construction site. The notice shall also contain a statement concerning the liability of the contractor or its surety for any liquidated damages (*See* FAR 49.402-7).    **Parent topic:** Subpart 1449.4 - Termination for Default
From: Tabor, Brock N (DEC) <brock.tabor@alaska.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 3:50 PM

To: TASreinterpretation

Subject: Alaska questions RE: TAS Interpretation

Hello,

I am writing to you in regards to the potential reinterpretation of CWA 518 and Tribal administration

issues. As you may know, Alaska is home to over two hundred tribes and will be of great interest to

them. That said, at this time Alaska only has one rese rvation (Metlakatla) and I have not heard that they

are interested in pursuing eligibility at this time.

It is my understanding that tribal eligibility is depending on whether a tribe has a formal reservation or

tribal trust land outside of a formal rese rvation. If this is the case, then Alaskan tribes would be excluded

(with the exception of Metlakatla) from this reinterpretation. That said, I noticed in the EPA

informational PPT (7

- 8

- 14) that EPA is taking comments on “limitation to Indian reservations”

.

I would appreciate it if you could clarify how EPA is going to be considering Alaskan Tribes and their

lands during this process and whether EPA is contemplating extending this rule to non

- reservation lands.

Thank you,

Brock Tabor

Water Quality Standards Section Manager

brock.tabor@alaska.gov

Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation

Division of Water: Water Quality Standards, Assessment & Restoration

(907) 465

- 5185

http://www.dec.alaska.gov/water/wqsar/index.htm
accounting practices and any other issues pertaining to his legal practice; 

(5) provide quarterly reports to the State Bar regarding his trust account, 

including but not limited to, copies of his trust account statements; and (6) 

not be convicted of any crime with the exception of minor traffic 

infractions that do not involve alcohol or controlled substances. Finally, 

the agreement requires Rinato to pay the costs of the disciplinary 

proceeding, excluding bar counsel and staff salaries, within 90 days after 

he receives a bill from the State Bar. 

Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the guilty 

plea agreement should be approved. See SCR 113(1). We hereby impose a 

six-month-and-one-day suspension to be served concurrently with the sixmonth suspension imposed in Docket No. 64956. 1Additionally, if Rinato 

successfully petitions for reinstatement under SCR 116, he will be on 

probation for two years and must comply with all of the conditions in the 

plea agreement, as outlined above. Finally, Rinato shall pay the costs of 

1Rinato currently is suspended for failure to pay his State Bar 

membership dues. Similar to the suspension imposed in Docket No. 

64956, the suspension imposed in this order is separate from and in 

addition to Rinato's dues suspension: the current suspensions for this 

matter and Docket No. 64956 shall not begin until Rinato has resolved his 

dues suspension. See SCR 98(13) (describing procedure for reinstatement 

after dues suspension). We further note that Rinato has been suspended 

for failure to comply with continuing legal education requirements, and 

his right to reinstatement is conditioned upon full compliance with SCR 

212(5) and SCR 213. In re Continuing Legal Education, Docket No. 66070 

(Order Granting Petition as to Certain Respondent Attorneys, January 29, 

2015). 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1047A Q/Mia 
Sear 

Parraffuir 

,J. 

Gibbons 

J. 

the disciplinary proceedings, excluding bar counsel and staff salaries, 

within 90 days of receipt of the State Bar's bill of costs. See SCR 120. 

It is so ORDERED. 

dta,g; 

Hardesty 

, C.J. 

DOUGLAS and SAITTA, JJ., dissenting: 

We would reject the conditional guilty plea agreement because 

the agreed-upon discipline is not sufficient. 

Saitta 

cc: Chair, Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board 

Peter M. Rinato 

C. Stanley Hunterton, Bar Counsel, State Bar of Nevada 

Kimberly K. Farmer, Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada 

Perry Thompson, Admissions Office, U.S. Supreme Court 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(0) 1947A e
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 78 FR 34247, June 7, 2013.

§ 1.51 Description and custody of NRC seal. ( a ) Pursuant to section 201(a) of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, has adopted an official seal. Its description is as follows: An American bald eagle (similar to that on the Great Seal of the United States of America) of brown and tan with claws and beak of yellow, behind a shield of red, white, and blue, clutching a cluster of thirteen arrows in its left claw and a green olive branch in its right claw, positioned on a field of white, with the words “United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission” in dark blue encircling the eagle. The eagle represents the United States of America and its interests.
( b ) The Official Seal of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is illustrated as follows:
( c ) The Secretary of the Commission is responsible for custody of the impression seals and of replica (plaque) seals.