alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Assistant Secretary Witkowsky’s Travel to Egypt for UN Climate Change Conference

# 									Assistant Secretary Witkowsky’s Travel to Egypt for UN Climate Change Conference							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

November 10, 2022

Assistant Secretary of State for Conflict and Stabilization Operations Anne A. Witkowsky will travel to Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, November 13-14 to join the U.S. delegation to the 2022 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP27). While there, Assistant Secretary Witkowsky will focus on the importance of long-term, partnership-based engagement through the U.S. Strategy to Prevent Conflict and Promote Stability to address the links between the climate crisis, conflict, and fragility. Her meetings will include European and Pacific partners also involved in climate adaptation and resiliency efforts in the interest of ensuring greater peace and stability.

Please contact CSOPublicAffairs1@state.gov for media inquiries and follow @StateCSO on Twitter for updates.

Tags

Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization OperationsBureau of Near Eastern AffairsCOP27EgyptOffice of the SpokespersonOfficial International Travel

Back to Top
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RAFAEL ROA-FIGUEROA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-73316

Agency No. A073-806-103

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 26, 2012** 

Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

Rafael Roa-Figueroa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. 

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law,

FILED

JUL 02 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-73316

Vasquez de Alcantar v. Holder, 645 F.3d 1097, 1099 (9th Cir. 2011), and review

for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Lopez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft,

381 F.3d 847, 850-51 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny the petition for review.

The agency properly concluded that Roa-Figueroa was ineligible for

cancellation of removal because he failed to meet the seven-year continuous

physical presence requirement. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(2), (d)(1) (requiring seven

years of continuous residence after having been “admitted in any status” and

stopping accrual upon service of a Notice to Appear (“NTA”)).

 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Roa-Figueroa was

properly served with his NTA where the signed certificate of service indicates it

was personally served on him. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.13; Kohli v. Gonzales, 473

F.3d 1061, 1068 (9th Cir. 2007) (applying a presumption of regularity regarding

the official acts of public officers). Roa-Figueroa’s contention that his NTA was

invalid because it did not specify the time and place of his initial removal hearing

is foreclosed by Popa v. Holder, 571 F.3d 890, 895-96 (9th Cir. 2009).

Neither Roa-Figueroa’s filing of an application for legal permanent

residence nor his receipt of advanced parole constitute admission “in any status”

for purposes of cancellation of removal. See Vasquez de Alcantar, 645 F.3d at

1103 (mere filing for legal permanent residence status does not constitute an
3 08-73316

admission “in any status”); Altamirano v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 586, 590-91 & n.4

(9th Cir. 2005) (a parolee has neither been admitted nor made a lawful entry into

the United States).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
### Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit Program

Approved in the California State Implementation Plan

**PSD Permits T**  **ransferred to BAAQMD**

**July 2016**

Facility PSD Permit Number Permit Issuing

Agency 1 PSD Permit Issuance

Date

Tosco Corporation, Lion Oil Division, Avon Refinery, Martinez, CA

(currently called Tesoro Refining & Marketing Company LLC) SFB 78

- 07 EPA December 18, 1978

IBM Corporation

(currently called HGST, a Western Digital Company) SFB 82

- 01 EPA June 9, 1982

Crockett Cogeneration SFB 82

- 05 EPA February 9, 1983

Cardinal Cogeneration 2 SFB 82

- 04 EPA June 27, 1983

Martinez Cogeneration Limited Partnership SFB 83

- 01 EPA December 13, 1983

Calpine Gilroy Cogeneration SFB 84

- 04 EPA August 1, 1985

Tosco San Francisco Area Refinery, Rodeo, CA

(currently called Phillips 66 Company

- San Francisco Refinery) SFB 85

- 03 EPA March 3, 1986

Los Medanos Energy Center, LLC 3 Permit Application No. 1272

Site Number: B1866 BAAQMD July 2, 2001

Delta Energy Center, LLC Permit Application No.: 19414

Site Number: B2095 BAAQMD March 23, 2000

Metcalf Energy Center, LLC 4 Permit Application No.: 11251

Site Number: B2183 BAAQMD April 11, 2005

Russell City Energy Center Permit Application No. 15487 Site

Number: B8136 BAAQMD February 3, 2010

1 The PSD permits directly issued by BAAQMD were issued under the District’s PSD delegation agreement.

2 According to an e

- mail message dated November 3, 2015 from BAAQMD to U.S. EPA Region 9, Cardinal Cogeneration has been shut down.

3 Los Medanos Energy Center, LLC was originally issued under application 18595 on September 9, 1999; this was superseded by a pplication 1272.

4 Metcalf Energy Center, LLC was originally issued under application 27215 on February 1, 2002; this was superseded by applicat ion 11251.
Editorial Note on Part 882
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 882 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 882.4060 Ventricular cannula. ( a ) *Identification.* A ventricular cannula is a device used to puncture the ventricles of the brain for aspiration or for injection. This device is frequently referred to as a ventricular needle.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 882.9.
[44 FR 51730, Sept. 4, 1979, as amended at 65 FR 2319, Jan. 14, 2000; 84 FR 71815, Dec. 30, 2019]
# L_2020389EN.01000101.xml

| 19.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 389/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 389/1

---

COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2020/1726

of 14 September 2020

on the signing and conclusion, on behalf of the Union, of the Framework Agreement between the European Union and the United Nations for the Provision of Mutual Support in the context of their respective missions and operations in the field

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 37 thereof, in conjunction with Article 218(5) and Article 218(6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 5 March 2015, the Council authorised the opening of negotiations for the conclusion of a Framework Agreement on Cooperation between the European Union and the United Nations in the context of their respective crisis management operations. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 5 March 2015, the Council authorised the opening of negotiations for the conclusion of a Framework Agreement on Cooperation between the European Union and the United Nations in the context of their respective crisis management operations.

| (2) | A Framework Agreement between the European Union and the United Nations for the Provision of Mutual Support in the context of their respective missions and operations in the field (the ‘Framework Agreement’) has been negotiated. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

A Framework Agreement between the European Union and the United Nations for the Provision of Mutual Support in the context of their respective missions and operations in the field (the ‘Framework Agreement’) has been negotiated.

| (3) | The Framework Agreement should be approved on behalf of the Union, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The Framework Agreement should be approved on behalf of the Union,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The Framework Agreement between the European Union and the United Nations for the Provision of Mutual Support in the context of their respective missions and operations in the field is hereby approved on behalf of the Union (1).

Article 2

The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Framework Agreement in order to bind the Union.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 14 September 2020.

For the Council

The President

M. ROTH

---

(1)  See page 2 of this Official Journal.

1

---
HomeBiographies...Kevin K. Sullivan

# 				Ambassador Kevin K. Sullivan			

															Deputy Assistant Secretary for Brazil Southern Cone and Andean Affairs						Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs												

				August 21, 2023 -									Present							

Tags

Bureau of Western Hemisphere AffairsState Department Official

Back to Top
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

#### § 315.93 Supplements, amendments, or revisions.

The Secretary of the Treasury may at any time, or from time to time, prescribe additional, supplemental, amendatory, or revised rules and regulations governing the United States Savings Bonds and Savings Notes to which this circular applies.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>      5
<MULTIPLIER>   1
       
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       2,590,357
<SECURITIES>                                83,670,938
<RECEIVABLES>                               11,291,187
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            98,063,616
<PP&E>                                      24,657,492
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,581,676
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             198,337,837
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       88,847,642
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        45,543
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     33,543
<OTHER-SE>                                  30,968,024 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               198,337,837
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            26,573,022
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               18,025,625
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           8,589,125
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (41,728)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   677,849
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (719,577)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        


</TABLE>
40304.

#### McFARLAND v. LUMPKIN et al.

Decided September 24, 1963.

*McFarland & Cooper, Walter G. Cooper,*for plaintiff in error.

*S. S. Bobinson,*contra.

Felton, Chief Judge.

Where a petition is brought in two counts, one for breach of contract and the other on quantum meruit, and a general demurrer is sustained to the former count, the “cause” is still pending in the court below and an exception to the sustaining of the demurrer to one of the counts, under the following decisions, and others, is premature. *Johnson v. Henry & Co.,*178 Ga. 542 (174 SE 140); *Carhart v. Mackle,*22 Ga. App. 520 (96 SE 591); *Southern Flour &c. Co. v. Levy Rice Milling Co.,*22 Ga. App. 554 (96 SE 593); *Railey v. United Life &c. Ins. Co.,*25 Ga. App. 301 (103 SE 84); *Stein v. Lazarus,*33 Ga. App. 791 (128 SE 696). *Hill v. Lang,*211 Ga. 484 (86 SE2d 498) is distinguishable from the cases coming under the general rale as above stated for reasons given by the court in that case.

*Writ of error dismissed.*

*Eberhardt and Bussell, JJ., concur.*
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 18, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-40034 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus PABLO ABEL VILLARREAL-MEDINA, also known as Paulo Abel Villarreal-Medina, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. L-02-CR-1179-1

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Pablo Abel Villarreal-Medina entered a guilty plea to one count of transporting an undocumented alien within the United States by means of a motor vehicle. The district court sentenced him to thirty months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. Villarreal-Medina asserts that the written judgment of conviction must be reformed to delete a condition of supervisedNo. 03-40034 -2- release that prohibits his possession of a dangerous weapon. He asserts that this condition is a special condition of supervised release that conflicts with the district court’s oral pronouncement of his sentence. Villarreal-Medina’s argument is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Torres-Aguilar , 352 F.3d 934, 938 (5th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
Counterpart for Additional Guarantors



 EXHIBIT 10.2 
 COUNTERPART FOR ADDITIONAL GUARANTORS 
 This COUNTERPART (this
“Counterpart”), dated August 16, 2012, is delivered pursuant to Section 16 of the Guaranty referred to below. The undersigned hereby agrees that this Counterpart may be attached to the Second Lien Guaranty, dated as of
October 9, 2008 (as it may be from time to time amended, modified or supplemented, the “Guaranty”; capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed therein), among the Guarantors named
therein and Wilmington Trust, National Association, as successor-in-interest to The Bank of New York Mellon, as Collateral Agent, as Guarantied Party. The undersigned, by executing and delivering this Counterpart, hereby becomes an Additional
Guarantor under the Guaranty in accordance with Section 16 thereof and agrees to be bound by all of the terms thereof. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this Counterpart to be duly executed and delivered by its officer thereunto duly
authorized as of as of August 16, 2012. 
  

			
	NextWave Holdco LLC
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Francis J. Harding

	Title:	 	 Francis J. Harding,
Treasurer



 
			
	Address:	 	12264 El Camino Road, Ste. 305
		 	San Diego, California 92130
		 	Facsimile: 858-704-7825
		 	Attention: Frank Cassou, Esq.


 
			
	
	NextWave Metropolitan Inc.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Francis J. Harding

	Title:	 	 Francis J. Harding,
President



 
			
	Address:	 	12264 El Camino Road, Ste. 305
		 	San Diego, California 92130
		 	Facsimile: 858-704-7825
		 	Attention: Frank Cassou, Esq.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CARLOS JAVIER MONTANEZ SOTO, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 16-72080 

Agency No. A095-763-017 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 15, 2018**

Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Carlos Javier Montanez Soto, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for 

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an 

immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. 

We have jurisdiction under 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

MAY 18 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-72080 

denial of a motion to reopen. Martinez-Hernandez v. Holder, 778 F.3d 1086, 1088 

(9th Cir. 2015). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Montanez Soto’s motion 

to reopen as untimely, where he conceded the motion was filed past the 90-day

filing deadline, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1), and he provided no evidence of due 

diligence for equitable tolling of the deadline, see Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 

672, 679 (9th Cir. 2011) (equitable tolling is available to an alien who is prevented 

from timely filing a motion to reopen due to deception, fraud, or error, as long as 

the alien exercises due diligence in discovering such circumstances); CarrilloGonzalez v. INS, 353 F.3d 1077, 1079 (9th Cir. 2003) (statements by counsel are 

not evidence).

In light of this disposition, we do not address Montanez Soto’s contentions 

regarding compliance with Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### GEORGE F. ARCHER AND KATE C. ARCHER v. THE UNITED STATES.

[47 O. Cls. B., 248; 241 U. S. B„ 119.]

*On the defendants' appeal.*

The plantation of the claimant is valuable agricultural land on the Mississippi, subject only to occasional overflow. The Mississippi Biver Commission constructs a dike upon the land, the effect of which at times of high water is to deflect the flood waters of the river across a large portion of the plan*492tation with such force as to scour and destroy much of the top soil, move away houses, and leave a deposit of sand and gravel, totally destroying the value of the land for agricultural purposes.

The court below decides:

Where a dike was erected on agricultural land by the Mississippi River Commission, and was the work of the United States alone, the effect of which is to destroy the value of the land permanently for agricultural purposes, the defendants are liable under the Constitution.

The distinction between this case and *Bedford’s*(192 U. S. R.) is that there the Government did not invade the land, but merely sought to preserve the operation of natural causes, while here the Government erected its dike on the claimants’ land, covering more than 31 acres, which work directly caused the taking of 3,664.6 acres more.

It is settled that whenever there has been an actual physical taking of a part of a tract of land the compensation will be the market value of the part appropriated, and the damage to so much of the remainder as may result from the taking. Land can not be invaded and taken for a public work without subjecting the Government to liability for all the land taken, including that incidentally destroyed.

Where a claimant recovers for land taken, judgment will be entered at the time of the decision for an amount stated, but before the judgment is certified the rule laid down in *Hey-ward’s ease*(46 C. Cls. R., 484, 501), as to the survey and conveyance of the land taken and possible correction of the judgment, will be followed.

The decision of the court below is reversed and cause remanded for further proceedings.

Mr. Justice McKenna

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court May 1,1916.
```

[106th Congress Public Law 385]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ385.106]

[[Page 114 STAT. 1463]]

Public Law 106-385
106th Congress

                                 An Act

 
    To rename the National Museum of American Art. <<NOTE: Oct. 27, 
                          2000 -  [S. 3201]>> 

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

SECTION 1. RENAMING OF NATIONAL MUSEUM OF AMERICAN ART.

    (a) In General.--The National Museum of American Art, as designated 
under section 1 of Public Law 96-441 (20 U.S.C. 71 note), shall be known 
as the ``Smithsonian American Art Museum''.
    (b) References in Law.--Any reference in any law, regulation, 
document, or paper to the National Museum of American Art shall be 
considered to be a reference to the Smithsonian American Art Museum.

SEC. 2. <<NOTE: 20 USC 71 note.>> EFFECTIVE DATE.

    Section 1 shall take effect on the day after the date of enactment 
of this Act.

    Approved October 27, 2000.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S. 3201:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 146 (2000):
            Oct. 12, considered and passed Senate.
            Oct. 17, considered and passed House.

                                  <all>
```
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

§ 343.2 Issue date and purchase. ( a ) *Issue date.* The issue date must be a business day. The bonds will be issued as of the date of receipt of Form PD F 3871 “Application for Issue of United States Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Company Tax and Loss Bonds” and receipt of the remittance of funds for the full amount of the bond(s). Applications under this offering must be submitted to the Division of Special Investments. An application may be submitted by fax at (304) 480-7786 or (304) 480-6818, by mail, or by other carrier. Applications submitted by mail should be sent by certified or registered mail.
( b ) *Purchase.* Tax and loss bonds may only be purchased from the Division of Special Investments. The purchaser will instruct their financial institution to submit the exact amount of funds on the requested issue date to the Division of Special Investments via the Fedwire funds transfer system, with credit directed to the Treasury's General Account, according to wire instructions obtained from the Division of Special Investments (see § 343.1(g)). Full payment should be submitted by 3:00 P.M. Eastern time to ensure that settlement of the transaction occurs.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1535-0127)
EXHIBIT
32.2
  CERTIFICATION
OF THE PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
 PURSUANT
TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In
connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Protein Polymer
Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2009
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 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 results of operations of the
      Company.
 
 /s/ JAMES
B. MCCARTHY
 
 James B.
McCarthy
 Interim
Principal Financial Officer
 Date:
August 19, 2009
#### § 1030.530 [Reserved]