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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VALENTINA S. MAXWELL, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney 

General; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-16520 

D.C. No. 

2:14-cv-02772-TLN-AC 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 12, 2018**

San Francisco, California

Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Valentina S. Maxwell, a native and citizen of Russia, appeals pro se from the 

district court’s dismissal of her complaint under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) requesting a 

hearing on her naturalization application, for failure to state a claim. We have 

 

* 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 15 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-16520 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the dismissal of a 

complaint for failure to state a claim. Yith v. Nielsen, 881 F.3d 1155, 1161 (9th Cir. 

2018). We reverse.

The district court erred in dismissing Maxwell’s complaint for failure to 

state a claim, where the language of 8 U.S.C. § 1429 only bars the Attorney 

General, and not the district court, from considering a naturalization application 

when there is a removal proceeding pending against the applicant, and where 

Maxwell was not in removal proceedings pursuant to a “warrant of arrest,” but 

pursuant to a notice to appear. See 8 U.S.C. § 1429 (“[N]o application for 

naturalization shall be considered by the Attorney General if there is pending 

against the applicant a removal proceeding pursuant to a warrant of arrest issued 

under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act.”); Yith, 881 F.3d at 1165, 

1168 (the statutory language of 8 U.S.C. § 1429 applies only to the Attorney 

General, not the district court, and thus the district court is not prevented from 

granting relief under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b); § 1429 is inapplicable to applicants in 

proceedings pursuant to a notice to appear, which is different from a “warrant of 

arrest”). Accordingly, we reverse the district court and remand for further 

proceedings consistent with this decision.

REVERSED and REMANDED.
| (logo) plante moran | **Plante & Moran, PLLC**

10 South Riverside Plaza

9th floor

Chicago, IL 60606

Tel: 312.207.1040

Fax: 312.207.1066

plantemoran.com |
|---------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Report of IndependentRegistered Public Accounting Firm

 

 

To the Board of Directors

National Tax Search, LLC

 

We have examined National TaxSearch, LLC’s (the “Company”) compliance with the Securities and ExchangeCommission’s Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, set forth in Item 1122(d) of theSecurity and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the National Tax SearchTaxQ system (the “Platform”) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2016.The Company has determined that only certain servicing criteria,1122(d)(l)(ii), 1122(d)1(iv), 1122(d)2(ii), 1122(d)2(v), 1122(d)2(vi),1122(d)(4)(xi), and 1122(d)(4)(xii), are applicable to the activities performedby it with respect to the Platform covered by this report. The Company hasdetermined that the remaining servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) ofthe SEC Regulation AB are not applicable to the activities performed by it withrespect to the Platform covered by this report.

 

Management is responsible forthe Company's compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility isto express an opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliancewith the servicing criteria based on our examination. Our examination wasconducted in accordance with standards of the Public Company AccountingOversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a testbasis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable servicingcriteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in thecircumstances. Our examination included a selection of a sample of transactionsand compliance activities related to the Platform during the examination periodand determining whether the Company processed those transactions and performedthose activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Our testing ofselected transactions and compliance activities was limited to calculations,reports, and activities performed by the Company during the period covered bythis report. Our procedures did not include determining whether errors may haveoccurred prior to our tests that may have affected the balances or amountscalculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this reportfor the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that ourexamination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination doesnot provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicingcriteria.

 

In our opinion, management’sassertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned servicing criteriaas of and for the year ended December 31, 2016 for the Platform is fairlystated in all material respects.

 

 

/s/ Plante & Moran, PLLC

 

Chicago, IL

January 27, 2017

 

 

(logo) Praxity 

MEMBER

GLOBAL ALLIANCE OF 

INDEPENDENT FIRMS
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1043

To require the continued availability of $1 Federal reserve notes for

circulation.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 24, 1995

Mr. DAVIS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Banking and Financial Services

A BILL

To require the continued availability of $1 Federal reserve

notes for circulation.

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 ‘‘Save the Greenback

5 Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM AMOUNTS

7 OF $1 FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES IN CIRCULA8 TION.

9 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Sec10 retary of the Treasury and the Board of Governors of the
2

•HR 1043 IH

1 Federal Reserve System shall take such action as may be

2 necessary to ensure that the number of Federal reserve

3 notes in the denomination of $1 which are in circulation

4 at any time does not decrease below the number of such

5 reserve notes in circulation as of the date of the enactment

6 of this Act.

Æ
#### § 601.509 Power of attorney not required in cases docketed in the Tax Court of the United States.

The petitioner and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue stand in the position of parties litigant before a judicial body in a case docketed in the Tax Court of the United States. The Tax Court has its own rules of practice and procedure and its own rules respecting admission to practice before it. Accordingly, a power of attorney is not required to be submitted by an attorney of record in a case which is docketed in the Tax Court. Correspondence in connection with cases docketed in the Tax Court will be addressed to counsel of record before the Court. However, a power of attorney is required to be submitted by an individual other than the attorney of record in any matter before the Internal Revenue Service concerning a docketed case.

[56 FR 24009, May 8, 1991]
100 Seawall Road, Adak AK 99546 Phone: 206

- 497

- 7155 Fax: 509

- 293

- 4788 March 17, 2015

Mr. Kevin Schlemmer Office of Aviation Analysis U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Proposal to provide essential air service in Adak, Alaska

, Docket DOT

- OST

- 2000

- 8556

Dear Mr. Schlemmer :

I am writing you to express our support and interest in keep ing the existing two weekly flights to Adak provided by Alaska Airlines, as outlined in their February 11 th proposal

. Thi s jet service is the only form of reliable transportation
to transport our L ive C rab out of Adak and into the market place. Due to the nature of our extremely perishable product , it is time sensitive and can only economically be flown out of Adak. Losing Alaska Airlines jet service would
be detrimental to our business model and we would have to leave Adak as there would not be a reliable, proper way to get our products to our customers. Our product goes to cust omers not only in the contiguous Unite d States
but als o Asia and the Middle East.

As a testament to the potential success of our business model, Premier Harvest ha s shipped approximately 73,000 pounds of Live Golden King Crab and used 36 passenger flights originating or departing from Adak s ince December

2014 . We are looking at our outgoing volume to increase to approximately 150,000 pounds per week if we can

secure more flights into Adak. Succinctly put, not only do we need the two weekly flights propose d but we have
also reached out to Alaska Air lines representative s to inquire about the possibility of more flights. Ultimately

, we believe that successfully implementing our business plan will help in reducing the amount of subsidy required for Essential Air Service in the coming years.

It is imperative to the survival of our business in Adak that the twice a week jet aircraft flights remain a s a minimum
service level

. Alaska Air lines has been wonderful to work with and have went up and beyond to help us move our perishable product even w hen there have been weather or mechanical problems. As we look into expanding the capabilities of the processing plant, Alaska Airlines service will be integral in moving materials and passengers in and out of Adak, similar to other processing plants that have operated in Adak in the past.

Respectfully I urge t he Department of Transport ation to support the Alaska Airlines proposal for providing Essential Air Services to Adak, Alaska. Without the support and operation of Alaska Air lines our operations in Adak

, Alaska
will not be successful. Should you have and questions or concerns please feel free to contact me at any time.

Sincerely,

Dustin Anderson
Chief Executive Officer / Founder
www.gpo.gov

### §§931 to 938. Repealed. Pub. L. 103–116, §4(c), Oct. 27, 1993, 107 Stat. 1121

Section 931, Pub. L. 86–322, §1, Sept. 21, 1959, 73 Stat. 592, related to publication of notice of agreement to division of assets, closure of roll, preparation of roll, protest against inclusion or omission from roll, finality of determinations, and final publication.

Section 932, Pub. L. 86–322, §2, Sept. 21, 1959, 73 Stat. 592, related to personal property rights of enrolled members and restrictions on alienation.

Section 933, Pub. L. 86–322, §3, Sept. 21, 1959, 73 Stat. 592, related to distribution of tribal assets.

Section 934, Pub. L. 86–322, §4, Sept. 21, 1959, 73 Stat. 593, related to land surveys and execution of conveyances by Secretary and title of grantees.

Section 935, Pub. L. 86–322, §5, Sept. 21, 1959, 73 Stat. 593, related to revocation of tribal constitution, termination of Federal services, application of Federal and State laws, and effect on citizenship status.

Section 936, Pub. L. 86–322, §6, Sept. 21, 1959, 73 Stat. 593, provided that rights, privileges, and obligations under South Carolina laws would be unaffected.

Section 937, Pub. L. 86–322, §7, Sept. 21, 1959, 73 Stat. 593, related to applicability of Federal or State income taxes on distributed property.

Section 938, Pub. L. 86–322, §8, Sept. 21, 1959, 73 Stat. 594, related to education and training program, purposes, subjects, transportation, subsistence, contracts, and other education programs.

#### Effective Date of Repeal

For effective date of repeal, see section 17 of Pub. L. 103–116, set out as an Effective Date note under section 941 of this title.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 32.2


                           GTECH HOLDINGS CORPORATION

                            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 GTECH Holdings Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending August 28, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the Date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jaymin
B. Patel, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to sections 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 result of operations of the Company.


                                    GTECH HOLDINGS CORPORATION


Date: October 6, 2004               By /s/ Jaymin B. Patel
                                    ------------------------------
                                    Jaymin B. Patel, Senior Vice President and
                                    Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1
                                                                    ------------

               STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
               SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

The undersigned, Mary Lynn D. Lenz, is the President and Chief Executive
Officer of Slade's Ferry Bancorp. (the "Company"). This statement is being
furnished in connection with the filing by the Company of the Company's
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 (the
"Report").

By execution of this statement, I certify that:

     1)    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
           15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or
           78o(d)); and

     2)    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
           material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
           of the Company as of the dates and for the periods covered by the
           Report.

This statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the Report so that
this statement will accompany the Report at such time as the Report is filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not intended that
this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

DATE:    August 11, 2006              /s/ Mary Lynn D. Lenz
         -----------------------      ---------------------------------------
                                      Mary Lynn D. Lenz
                                      President and
                                      Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 155 (Thursday, August 13, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 40822]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-19293]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special 
Emphasis Panel (SEP): Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Research 
Centers, Special Interest Project Competitive Supplements (SIPS) (U48 
Panels N, O and P), RFA-DP09-101SUPP09, Initial Review

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC) announces the aforementioned meeting.

    Time and Dates:

9 a.m.-5 p.m., August 5, 2009 (closed).
9 a.m.-5 p.m., August 6, 2009 (closed).
9 a.m.-5 p.m., August 7, 2009 (closed).

    Place: Westin Hotel, 3377 Peachtree Road, NE., Atlanta, GA, 
30326, Telephone (678) 500-3100.
    Status: The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance 
with provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(4) and (6), Title 5 
U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis 
and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.
    Matters To Be Discussed: The meeting will include the review, 
discussion, and evaluation of the application received in response 
to ``Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Research Centers, 
Special Interest Project Competitive Supplements (SIPS) (U48 Panels 
N, O and P), RFA-DP09-101SUPP09, initial review.''
    Contact Person for More Information: Brenda Colley-Gilbert, 
Ph.D., Director, Extramural Research Program Office, CCH, 47770 
Buford Highway, MS K-92, Atlanta, GA 30341, Telephone (770) 488-
8390.
    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been 
delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining 
to announcements of meetings and other committee management 
activities, for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and 
Disease Registry.

Elaine L. Baker,
Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. E9-19293 Filed 8-12-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
www.gpo.gov

### §455. Contracts for education in public schools; submission of education plan by contractor as prerequisite; criteria for approval of plan by Secretary of the Interior; participation by non-Indian students

The Secretary of the Interior shall not enter into any contract for the education of Indians unless the prospective contractor has submitted to, and has had approved by the Secretary of the Interior, an education plan, which plan, in the determination of the Secretary, contains educational objectives which adequately address the educational needs of the Indian students who are to be beneficiaries of the contract and assures that the contract is capable of meeting such objectives: *Provided*, That where students other than Indian students participate in such programs, money expended under such contract shall be prorated to cover the participation of only the Indian students.

(Apr. 16, 1934, ch. 147, §4, as added Pub. L. 93–638, title II, §202, Jan. 4, 1975, 88 Stat. 2213.)

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 4 of act Apr. 16, 1934, ch. 147, 48 Stat. 596; June 4, 1936, ch. 490, 49 Stat. 1458, directed Secretary of the Interior to report to Congress any contracts made under provisions of sections 452 to 454 of this title, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 86–533, §1(15), June 29, 1960, 74 Stat. 248.

#### Section Referred to in Other Sections

This section is referred to in title 20 section 2313.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph Johnson, Appellant.

[804 NYS2d 266]

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Ohlig, J.), dated March 8, 2004, which, pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C, designated him a level three sex offender.

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

The County Court’s determination to designate the defendant a level three sex offender in accordance with the risk assessment instrument was supported by clear and convincing evi*636dence. Thus, it should not be disturbed *(see*Correction Law § 168-n [3]; *People v Baylor,*19 AD3d 467 [2005], *lv denied*5 NY3d 710 [2005]; *People v Masters,*19 AD3d 387 [2005]; *People v Williams,*19 AD3d 388 [2005], *lv denied*5 NY3d 713 [2005]; *People v Villanueva,*13 AD3d 431 [2004]; *People v Dong V. Dao,*9 AD3d 401, 401-402 [2004]; *People v Hampton,*300 AD2d 641 [2002]). Schmidt, J.P., Cozier, Rivera and Fisher, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6042

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RICHARDE DANIEL CARTER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees,

District Judge. (3:04-cr-00094-RLV-CH-1; 3:07-cv-00292-RLV)

Submitted: May 22, 2008 Decided: May 28, 2008

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richarde Daniel Carter, Appellant Pro Se. Robert John Gleason,

Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Richarde Daniel Carter seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)

(2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Carter has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED