alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

JAN 10, 2012

JOHN LEY

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 11-11935

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

 Agency No. A094-443-089

JOSE SANTOS YANES,

a.k.a. Jose S. Yanes Bonilla,

Petitioner,

versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

__________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

_________________________

(January 10, 2012)

Before TJOFLAT, PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
Jose Santos Yanes appeals the decision of the Board of Immigration

Appeals that affirmed the denial of his application for cancellation of removal. 8

U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). The Board found that Yanes was ineligible for cancellation

of removal because he had been convicted of a crime of domestic violence, id. §

1227(a)(2)(E)(i). We deny Yanes’s petition.

The decision of the Board is consistent with the plain language of the

statutes that govern cancellation of removal. Section 1229b(b)(1) provides that, in

cases of exceptional hardship, “[t]he Attorney General may cancel removal of . . .

an alien who is inadmissible or deportable” if he has remained in the United States

continually for ten years, “has been a person of good moral character,” and “has

not been convicted of an offense under . . . [8 U.S.C. §§] 1182(a)(2), 1227(a)(2),

or 1227(a)(3).” Section 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) prohibits an alien from committing “any

crime of violence . . . against a current or former spouse.” Yanes does not deny

that, in 2002, he was convicted in a Georgia court of hitting his wife, which is a

disqualifying offense under sections 1229b(b)(1) and 1227(a)(2). See Matter of

Cortez, 25 I. & N. Dec. 301, 310 (2010). Regardless of his status as an arriving

alien or his eligibility for the exception for petty offenses, see 8 U.S.C. §

1182(a)(2)(A)(ii), Yanes is ineligible for cancellation of removal. See Matter of

Almanza-Arenas, 24 I. & N. Dec. 771, 776 (2009). 

2
We DENY Yanes’s petition.

3
#### Charles Unanue, Respondent, v. Goya Foods, *Inc.,*et al., Appellants.

Order entered September 25, 1969, denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment unanimously reversed on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements to appellants, motion granted and complaint dismissed, without prejudice to the right of plaintiff to move at Special Term for leave to serve a supplemental complaint. The complaint sought to restrain permanently the holding of shareholders’ meetings of the respective defendant corporations. Temporary restraint was denied and the meetings have been held. It follows that the issues presented by the pleading have become moot. The relief, if any, plaintiff may be entitled to receive, should be sought by way of a supplemental complaint. Concur—-McGivern, J. P., Markewich, Steuer and Bastow, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       3,054,923
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,033,729<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  3,654,646<F2>
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            11,122,306
<PP&E>                                       5,308,664
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,811,707
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,744,472
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,865,951
<BONDS>                                      1,478,608
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        43,218
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,438,147
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,744,472
<SALES>                                      6,342,775
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,383,107
<CGS>                                        5,354,842
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,354,842
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               670,744
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              69,980
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                287,808
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (47,514)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            335,322
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   335,322
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .06
<FN>
<F1>ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE ARE NET OF AN ALLOWANCE OF $75,000 AT MARCH 31, 1997.
<F2>INVENTORIES ARE NET OF RESERVE OF $143,000 AT MARCH 31, 1997.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
§ 95.57 Reports. Each licensee, certificate holder, or other person having a facility clearance shall report to the CSA and the Regional Administrator of the appropriate NRC Regional Office listed in 10 CFR part 73, appendix A: ( a ) Any alleged or suspected violation of the Atomic Energy Act, Espionage Act, or other Federal statutes related to classified information (e.g., deliberate disclosure of classified information to persons not authorized to receive it, theft of classified information). Incidents such as this must be reported within 1 hour of the event followed by written confirmation within 30 days of the incident; and
( b ) Any infractions, losses, compromises, or possible compromise of classified information or classified documents not falling within paragraph (a) of this section. Incidents such as these must be entered into a written log. A copy of the log must be provided to the NRC on a monthly basis. Details of security infractions including corrective action taken must be available to the CSA upon request.
( c ) In addition, NRC requires records for all classification actions (documents classified, declassified, or downgraded) to be submitted to the NRC Division of Security Operations. These may be submitted either on an “as completed” basis or monthly. The information may be submitted either electronically by an on-line system (NRC prefers the use of a dial-in automated system connected to the Division of Security Operations) or by paper copy using NRC Form 790.
[64 FR 15653, Apr. 1, 1999, as amended at 68 FR 41222, July 11, 2003; 72 FR 49564, Aug. 28, 2007; 74 FR 62686, Dec. 1, 2009]
Subpart 2.1 - Definitions    **Parent topic:** PART 2902 - DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND TERMS2902.101 Definitions.       (a) Commonly used words and terms are defined in FAR subpart 2.1. This part 2902 gives DOL-specific meanings for some of these words and terms and defines other words and terms commonly used in the DOL acquisition process.          (b) The following words and terms are used as defined in this subpart unless the context in which they are used clearly requires a different meaning, or a different definition is prescribed for a particular part or portion of a part:          *Competition Advocate* The Competition Advocate for the Department of Labor is appointed by the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management and is defined in FAR 6.5 and 2906.5. If the appointee is recused from a procurement action, the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management may designate another official to act in that capacity.          *Contracting Activity* means an agency or component office within the Department of Labor with specific responsibility for managing contract functions pursuant to one or more warrants signed by the Senior Procurement Executive (or the Office of the Inspector General for its contracting activity).          *Contracting Officer's Technical Representative* means the individual appointed by the contracting officer to represent the Department of Labor's programmatic interests on a Department of Labor contract, task order, or delivery order. This individual is responsible to the contracting officer for overseeing receipt and acceptance of goods/services by the Government, reporting on the contractor's performance, and approving/disapproving payment to the contractor. Authority is otherwise limited to giving technical direction to the contractor within the framework of the contract (see 2901.603-71). This position may go by other titles, such as: a technical point of contact (TPOC) or Contacting Officer's Representative (COR).          *Head of Agency* (also called agency head), for the FAR and DOLAR only, means the Secretary of Labor or his/her designee except that the Secretary of Labor is the Head of Agency for acquisition actions, which by the terms of a statute or delegation must be performed specifically by the Secretary of Labor; the Inspector General is the Head of Agency in all cases for the Office of the Inspector General.          *Head of Contracting Activity* (HCA) means the official who has overall responsibility for managing the contracting activity, when the contracting activity has more than one person with a warrant issued by the Senior Procurement Executive or, in the case of the Office of the Inspector General, issued by the Inspector General or his/her designee. Each Head of Agency may designate HCA(s) as appropriate to be responsible for managing contracting activities within his or her respective Agency.          *Senior Procurement Executive* means the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management or his/her designee.
#### GORTIKOV v. GORTIKOV.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 19, 1914.)

Action by Benjamin Gortikov against Marion Gortikov.

No opinion. Motion denied. Settle order on notice.
PGI 208.7002-2 Requiring department

responsibilities.

The requiring department is responsible for—

(1) Ensuring compliance with the order of priority in FAR 8.001 for use of Government supply

sources before submitting a requirement to the acquiring department for contracting action; and

(2) Providing the acquiring department—

(i) The complete and certified documentation required by FAR 6.303-2(b). A requiring department

official, equivalent to the appropriate level in FAR 6.304, must approve the documentation before

submission of the military interdepartmental purchase request (MIPR) to the acquiring department;

(ii) Any additional supporting data that the acquiring department contracting officer requests (e.g.,

the results of any market survey or why none was conducted, and actions the requiring department

will take to overcome barriers to competition in the future);

(iii) The executed determination and findings required by FAR 6.302-7(c)(1);

(iv) When a requiring department requests an acquiring department to contract for supplies or

services using full and open competition after exclusion of sources, all data required by FAR

6.202(b)(2);

(v) When the requiring department specifies a foreign end product, any determinations required by

DFARS Part 225 or FAR Part 25;

(vi) A complete definition of the requirements, including a list (or copies) of specifications, drawings,

and other data required for the acquisition. The requiring department need not furnish Federal,

military, departmental, or other specifications or drawings or data that are available to the acquiring

department;

(vii) Justification required by FAR 17.205(a) for any option quantities requested;

(viii) A statement as to whether used or reconditioned material, former Government surplus

property, or residual inventory will be acceptable, and if so—

(A) A list of any supplies that need not be new; and

(B) The basis for determining the acceptability of such supplies (see FAR 11.302(b));

(ix) A statement as to whether the acquiring department may exceed the total MIPR estimate and, if

so, by what amount; and

(x) Unless otherwise agreed between the departments, an original and six copies of each MIPR and

its attachments (except specifications, drawings, and other data).

Parent topic: PGI 208.7002 Assignment authority.
#### § 950.1 Purpose.

The purpose of this part is to facilitate the construction and full power operation of new advanced nuclear facilities by providing risk insurance for certain delays attributed to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulatory process or to litigation.
227 So.2d 373

#### George L. DOSS v. AMERICAN VENTURES, INC., and Travelers Insurance Company.

No. 50066.

Nov. 6, 1969.

In re: George L. Doss applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 224 So.2d 470.

Writ refused. The judgment is not final.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> BD
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999             MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                               0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,029,498               2,527,074
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                  0                       0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                                0                       0
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                         10,041,468               9,478,788
<PP&E>                                               0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,070,966              12,005,862
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0                       0
<PAYABLES>                                      92,574                 381,792
<REPOS-SOLD>                                         0                       0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                                  0                       0
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                                   0                       0
<LONG-TERM>                                          0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,978,392              11,624,070
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,070,966              12,005,862
<TRADING-REVENUE>                               72,156               1,111,751
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                           146,722                 152,251
<COMMISSIONS>                                   55,796                 143,210
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                        0                       0
<FEE-REVENUE>                                        0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<COMPENSATION>                                       0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                163,082               1,120,702
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     163,082               1,120,702
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   163,082               1,120,702
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     4.34                   28.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     4.34                   28.27
        

</TABLE>
# EUR-Lex - 31984R1555 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31984R1555

**Council Regulation (EEC) No 1555/84 of 4 June 1984 amending Regulation (EEC) No 3671/81 on imports into the Community of certain agricultural products originating in Turkey **

*
Official Journal L 150 , 06/06/1984 P. 0004 - 0004 Finnish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 17 P. 0145 Spanish special edition: Chapter 03 Volume 30 P. 0245 Swedish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 17 P. 0145 Portuguese special edition Chapter 03 Volume 30 P. 0245 *

*****

COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 1555/84

of 4 June 1984

amending Regulation (EEC) No 3671/81 on imports into the Community of certain agricultural products originating in Turkey

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN

COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 113 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Whereas Regulation (EEC) No 3671/81 (1) lays down that where, pursuant to Articles 25 and 25a of Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 (2), the Commission introduces a countervailing charge on imports of certain fruit and vegetables originating in Turkey, it shall at the same time reintroduce for these products a customs duty at the level which applied before 1 January 1981;

Whereas the application of the abovementioned provision may, in the case of certain products, result in a customs duty being imposed on Turkey which is higher than that which, since 1 January 1981, has been agreed for all non-member supplier countries which do not enjoy special arrangements as regards imports into the Community;

Whereas Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 3671/81 should be modified accordingly; whereas, moreover, account should be taken of the arrangements applicable to imports originating in Turkey under the Association Agreement as at 31 December 1980,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 3671/81 is hereby replaced by the following:

'Article 1

Where, pursuant to Articles 25 and 25a of Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72, the Commission introduces a countervailing charge on imports of certain fruit and vegetables originating in Turkey, it shall at the same time reintroduce:

- for those products originating in Turkey which as at 31 December 1980 did not enjoy tariff preference under the arrangements arising from the Association Agreement, the duty applicable to non-member countries covered by the most-favoured nation clause,

- for those products originating in Turkey which enjoy a special arrangement under the Association Agreement, the duty under the Common Customs Tariff currently applicable to countries covered by the most-favoured nation clause, reduced in accordance with the provisions of the preferential scheme in force as at 31 December 1980.'

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Luxembourg, 4 June 1984.

For the Council

The President

J. DELORS

(1) OJ No L 367, 23. 12. 1981, p. 3.

(2) OJ No L 118, 20. 5. 1972, p. 1.
#### NEW et al. v. BURNETT et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 19, 1914.)

Action by Katherine T. New and another against Anna M. Burnett and another.

No opinion. Motion denied. Order filed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                             466
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,078
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,264
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,009
<PP&E>                                         173,950
<DEPRECIATION>                                  51,705
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 137,550
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,952
<BONDS>                                         38,621
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           137
<OTHER-SE>                                      74,005
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   137,550
<SALES>                                         84,875
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                84,875
<CGS>                                           21,188
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   80,711
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,276
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,888
<INCOME-TAX>                                       981
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,907
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,907
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .16
<FN>
<F1>5-02(31) NET OF TREASURY STOCK
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### BARNES v. ROOSEVELT.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

January 15, 1915.)

Costs (§ 69*) — Appeal—Expenses of Record.

Where the disbursements as taxed and awarded to appellant were principally for printing the record, a great part of which was occupied by appellant’s unsuccessful effort to establish that officials of a county charged with preparing jury lists and drawing a jury would not fairly perform such duty, and with the plaintiff’s reply to such charge, they would be directed to abide the event of the action.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Costs, Cent. Dig. §§ 247, 256; Dec. Dig. § 69.*]

Motion for resettlement of order, so as to provide that the costs and disbursements awarded to the appellant should abide the event of the action.

Motion granted.

See, also, 150 N. Y. Supp. 30.

Argued before SMITH, P. J., and KELLOGG, LYON, HOWARD, and WOODWARD, JJ.

Ivins, Mason, Wolff & Hoguet, of New York City, for the motion.

Bowers & Sands, of New York City, opposed.

*

For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

PER CURIAM.

Ten dollars costs, and the disbursements were allowed to the appellant according to the usual practice in this court on such motions. This motion, for a resettlement of the order, calls attention to facts which, in our judgment, should take this case from the ordinary ■ rule. The disbursements, as taxed, amount to $303.67, which are principally for printing the record. A great part of the printed record was occupied by the defendant’s effort to establish that the officials of Albany county, charged with the duty of preparing jury lists and drawing a jury, would not fairly perform that duty, and with the plaintiff’s reply to that charge. Defendant wholly failed in that contention. Under the circumstances, it seems proper that the costs and disbursements awarded to the appellant should abide the event of the action.

The. motion is therefore granted.