alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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 September 8, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-40910 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus LUCIANO SOLORIO-RIVERA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:04-CR-946-1

-------------------- Before KING, GARWOOD, and JOLLY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Luciano SolorioRivera raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
HomeCyber Issues...Cyber Issues

# Cyber Issues

86 items

        -    Remarks  		Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Walsh’s Prepared Remarks at the Ad-Hoc Committee to Elaborate a UN Cybercrime Convention	  James A. WalshFebruary 28, 2022New York, NY 
        -    Special Briefing  		Online Press Briefing with Anne Neuberger,  Deputy National Security Advisor for Cyber and Emerging Tech	  February 2, 2022 
        -    DSS Releases  		Dominican National Sentenced for Identity Theft Charges	  November 18, 2021 
        -    Remarks  		Secretary Antony J. Blinken on the Modernization of American Diplomacy	  Antony J. BlinkenOctober 27, 2021Foreign Service Institute, George P. Shultz National Foreign Affairs Training CenterArlington, VA 
        -    FPC Briefing  		Update on the International Counter-Ransomware Initiative	  October 15, 2021Friday, October 15, 2021 at 12:00 p.m. EDTWashington D.C. 
        -    Joint Statement  		Co-Chairs’ Statement on the Second ASEAN-U.S. Cyber Policy Dialogue	  October 13, 2021Virtual 
        -    Press Statement  		Responding to the PRC’s Destabilizing and Irresponsible Behavior in Cyberspace	  Antony J. BlinkenJuly 19, 2021 
        -    Media Note  		Rewards for Justice – Reward Offer for Information on Foreign Malicious Cyber Activity Against U.S. Critical Infrastructure	  July 15, 2021 
        -    Remarks  		Secretary Antony J. Blinken at the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence’s (NSCAI) Global Emerging Technology Summit	  Antony J. BlinkenJuly 13, 2021Mayflower HotelWashington, DC 
        -    Press Statement  		Holding Russia To Account	  Antony J. BlinkenApril 15, 2021 

previous page1…6789next page

Back to Top
§ 493.1281 Standard: Comparison of test results. ( a ) If a laboratory performs the same test using different methodologies or instruments, or performs the same test at multiple testing sites, the laboratory must have a system that twice a year evaluates and defines the relationship between test results using the different methodologies, instruments, or testing sites.
( b ) The laboratory must have a system to identify and assess patient test results that appear inconsistent with the following relevant criteria, when available: ( 1 ) Patient age.
( 2 ) Sex.
( 3 ) Diagnosis or pertinent clinical data.
( 4 ) Distribution of patient test results.
( 5 ) Relationship with other test parameters.
( c ) The laboratory must document all test result comparison activities.
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 06592

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

x 06592\06592_Checklist.XLS EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

06592\06592_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

06592\06592_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 06592\06592_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 06592\06592_PartB.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 06592\06592_PartC.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 06592\06592_PartD.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 06592\06592_PartD.xlsx Plant submitted survey file

x 06592\06592_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

06592\Certification Statement_06592.pdf Plant certification statement

x 06592\Supporting Documentation\06592_06592_WWT-1.ppt Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

06592\Supporting Documentation\06592_New Image.PNG Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 06592\Supporting Documentation\06592_PartD original.xlsx Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 06592\Supporting Documentation\06592_POND-1.ppt Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 06592\Supporting Documentation\06592_POND-2.ppt Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 06592\Supporting Documentation\06592_POND-3.ppt Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 06592\Supporting Documentation\06592_POND-4.ppt Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 06592\Supporting Documentation\06592_TCPP Water Balance.doc Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?

Organization Person Contacted Date Response

National Business .4..ircraft Association E1iCotti 4h~JlJi -

Regional Airline Association Dave Loiterer "fk4.}tfj -

Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Robert Hadunan (//ztj hi -

ATA Craig Fabian "ilu)D~ -
#### § 455.504 Definitions.

As used in this subpart—

*Medicaid RAC program* means a recovery audit contractor program administered by a State to identify overpayments and underpayments and recoup overpayments.

*Medicare RAC program* means a recovery audit contractor program administered by CMS to identify underpayments and overpayments and recoup overpayments, established under the authority of section 1893(h) of the Act.
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier:** 201 3

- NM

- 071

- AD

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate t o include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Department of State Dedicates New U.S. Consulate General in Hyderabad, India

# 									Department of State Dedicates New U.S. Consulate General in Hyderabad, India							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

June 2, 2023

In an important symbol of our enduring friendship with India, U.S. Ambassador Eric Garcetti, U.S. Consul General Jennifer Larson, and local government officials formally dedicated the new U.S. Consulate General Hyderabad on May 26.

Situated within Hyderabad’s Financial District, the new Consulate General occupies a 12-acre site in Nanakramguda and provides a secure, modern, sustainable, and resilient platform for U.S. diplomacy in India.  It models the latest in energy-efficient features and is on target to achieve Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED®) Gold certification – a globally recognized mark of achievement in high-performance, best-in-class, green buildings.  The project contributed a roughly $70 million investment in the local economy.

Richärd|Kennedy Architects of Phoenix, Arizona, was the design architect for the project and Caddell Construction of Montgomery, Alabama, constructed the consulate, with Integrus of Spokane, Washington, as architect of record.  The Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations (OBO) oversaw the project.

Learn more about the project here.

OBO provides safe, secure, functional, and resilient facilities that represent the U.S. Government to the host nation and that support U.S. diplomats in advancing U.S. foreign policy objectives abroad.

For further information, please contact OBO’s External Affairs Director Neda Brown at OBO-External-Affairs@state.gov or visit www.state.gov/obo.

Tags

Bureau of South and Central Asian AffairsDiplomacyEnergyEnvironmentIndiaOffice of the SpokespersonBureau of Overseas Buildings Operations

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Nuclear Weapon States Working-Level Experts Meeting on Strategic Risk Reduction

# 									Nuclear Weapon States Working-Level Experts Meeting on Strategic Risk Reduction							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

August 4, 2023

The United States is currently the chair of the dialogue among the five Nuclear Weapon States in an ongoing exchange in the context of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

In this capacity, the United States organized a working-level experts meeting with counterparts from the People’s Republic of China, France, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on August 2 in Vienna.

Participants discussed strategic risks and measures to reduce those risks.  They welcomed the professional approach of the delegations and noted the significance of the substantive and informative expert-level discussions over the course of the last year.  They also affirmed the need to continue these challenging but important discussions.

Tags

ChinaFranceIrelandNon-Proliferation TreatyNational and Nuclear Risk Reduction CenterOffice of the SpokespersonRussiaUnited Kingdom

Back to Top
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSSELYN YARELI MADEROS

- PINTO,

Petitioner,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 17

- 72060 Agency No. A206

- 631

- 203

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 18 , 202 3 * *
Before: GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Josselyn Yareli Maderos

- Pinto , a native and citizen of Guatemala , petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing
her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying h er applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against

* 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

JAN 24 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 17

- 72060

Torture (“C AT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr , 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for review.
Because Maderos

- Pinto does not challenge th e agency’s adverse credibility determination, this issue is waived. See Lopez

- Vasquez v. Holder , 706 F.3d 1072,
1079

- 80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, in this case,
Maderos

- Pinto’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Maderos

- Pinto’s claim was based on the same testimony the agency found not credible, and Maderos

- Pinto does not point to any other evidence in the record that compels the conclusio n that it is more likely than not she would be tortured in
Guatemala

. See id. at 1157. In light of this disposition, we do not reach Maderos

- Pinto ’ s remaining contentions regarding her eligibility for relief. See Santiago

- Rodriguez v. Holder , 657 F.3d 82 0, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)) ; Simeonov v. Ashcroft , 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts are not required to d ecide issues unnecessary to the results they3 17

- 72060

reach).
We do not consider the materials Maderos

- Pinto references in h er opening brief that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS , 79 F.3d 955,
963

- 64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (court’s r eview is limited to the administrative record)

. The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED .
#### § 51.3 Formula for determining allotments.

The Secretary shall make allotments to eligible Systems from amounts apportioned each year under the Act on the basis of a formula prescribed by the Secretary in accordance with the requirements of sections 112 and 113 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 10822 and 10823).
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.

Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum

opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain

computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of

Appeals and does not include the filing date. 

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 BENJAMIN BROOKS,

3 Petitioner-Appellant,

4 v. NO. 33,927

5 ROSA DIAZ-BROOKS,

6 Defendant-Appellee.

7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY

8 Gerard J. Lavelle, District Judge 

9 Benjamin Brooks

10 Los Lunas, NM 

11 Pro Se Appellant

12 Amanda D. Navarro

13 Albuquerque, NM 

14 for Appellee

15 MEMORANDUM OPINION

16 VANZI, Judge.
2

1 {1} Summary affirmance was proposed for the reasons stated in the notice of

2 proposed summary disposition. No memorandum opposing summary affirmance has

3 been filed, and the time for doing so has expired.

4 {2} AFFIRMED.

5 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED.

6 __________________________________

7 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge

8 WE CONCUR:

9 _________________________________

10 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge

11 _________________________________

12 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge
§ 493.1365 Standard; PPM testing personnel responsibilities. The testing personnel are responsible for specimen processing, test performance, and for reporting test results. Any PPM procedure must be— ( a ) Personally performed by one of the following practitioners: ( 1 ) A physician during the patient's visit on a specimen obtained from his or her own patient or from a patient of a group medical practice of which the physician is a member or employee.
( 2 ) A midlevel practitioner, under the supervision of a physician or in independent practice if authorized by the State in which the laboratory is located, during the patient's visit on a specimen obtained from his or her own patient or from the patient of a clinic, group medical practice, or other health care provider, in which the midlevel practitioner is a member or an employee.
( 3 ) A dentist during the patient's visit on a specimen obtained from his or her own patient or from a patient of a group dental practice of which the dentist is a member or an employee; and
( b ) Performed using a microscope limited to a brightfield or a phase/contrast microscope.
#### Rachel Aaronson, Respondent, *v.*The David Meyer Brewing Co., Appellant. (Action No. 2.)

Appeal from a judgment entered upon a verdict rendered by a jury in plaintiff’s favor.

B. Lewinson (Max J. Kohler, of counsel), for appellant.

H. B. Wesselman (David McClure, of counsel), for respondent.

Schuchman, J.

The appeal in this action involves the same questions discussed in action No. 1.

There is, however, an additional defense set up, to-wit:

> “ That at the time of the commencement of this action there was, and there is now, pending undetermined in this court a suit, wherein this plaintiff is plaintiff and this defendant is defendant, involving the same cause of action.”

Action No. 1 is brought on the guarantee, to recover the rent of July month, which is payable in advance; notice of nonpayment thereof was given to the guarantor on July 30th, and within thirty days thereafter suit could have been commenced against the guarantor.

That suit was commenced on September 4, 1896, and action No. 2 is brought to recover the rents for the months of August and September, payable in advance.

Notice of nonpayment of the rent for August month was given on August 5th, and for September month on September 2d. This action was commenced on October 23, 1896.

Either action Nos. 1 or 2 accrued within thirty days after notice of default to guarantor.

*868When action No. 1 was commenced, the thirty days’ notice stipulated for in the guarantee for the bringing of a suit against the guarantor for the rents of August and September months had not expired; in other words, the contingency upon which the bringing of this action depended, had not arisen.

The rule of law is, that each default in the payment of money due upon a contract, payable in installments, may be the subject of an independent action, provided it is brought before the next installment becomes due. Lorillard v. Clyde, 122 N. Y. 41; Underhill *v.*Collins, 39 N. Y. St. Repr. 795; Nathans v. Hope, 77 N. Y. 420; Perry v. Dickerson, 85 id. 345.

Judgment and order appealed from affirmed, with costs.

Conlan, J., concurs.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
- DipNote Home
- About
- All Posts
- Browse by Topic

HomeDipNote...DipNote: Refugee and Humanitarian Assistance

# 						DipNote: Refugee and Humanitarian Assistance					

		Subscribe		

6 items
Clear All Filters

## View collection by:

Select a Year20242021

Select a MonthJanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecember

Select a SpeakerLesley C. Ziman

Select a LocationBrazilBulgariaColombiaCubaEl SalvadorEthiopiaGreeceItalyJapanSerbiaSomaliaSouth AfricaSyriaVenezuela

Select a Release TypeDipNote: Refugee and Humanitarian Assistance

Select a Bureau/OfficeBureau of East Asian and Pacific AffairsBureau of Global Public AffairsBureau of Political-Military AffairsBureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration

          -    DipNote: Refugee and Humanitarian Assistance  		Welcome Corps:  First Year of Refugee Private Sponsorship a Big Success	  January 19, 2024 
          -    DipNote: Refugee and Humanitarian Assistance  		World Refugee Day: Faith and Humanitarian Responses	  June 20, 2021 
          -    DipNote: Refugee and Humanitarian Assistance  		‘Operation Welcome’ Gives Venezuelan Refugees and Migrants a Fresh Start in Brazil	  Lesley C. ZimanMay 14, 2021 
          -    DipNote: Refugee and Humanitarian Assistance  		Countering Gender-Based Violence – How U.S. Humanitarian Assistance Cultivates a Safe Space	  May 10, 2021 
          -    DipNote: Refugee and Humanitarian Assistance  		Commemorating the 10th Anniversary of the Great East Japan Earthquake	  March 11, 2021 
          -    DipNote: Refugee and Humanitarian Assistance  		Casa Pintada: Helping Colombian Communities Rebuild Trust Among Neighbors	  Lesley C. ZimanFebruary 16, 2021 

Back to Top
§ 482.96 Condition of participation: Quality assessment and performance improvement (QAPI). Transplant programs must develop, implement, and maintain a written, comprehensive, data-driven QAPI program designed to monitor and evaluate performance of all transplantation services, including services provided under contract or arrangement. ( a ) *Standard: Components of a QAPI program.* The transplant program's QAPI program must use objective measures to evaluate the center's performance with regard to transplantation activities and outcomes. Outcome measures may include, but are not limited to, patient and donor selection criteria, accuracy of the waiting list in accordance with the OPTN waiting list requirements, accuracy of donor and recipient matching, patient and donor management, techniques for organ recovery, consent practices, patient education, patient satisfaction, and patient rights. The transplant program must take actions that result in performance improvements and track performance to ensure that improvements are sustained.
( b ) *Standard: Adverse events.* A transplant program must establish and implement written policies to address and document adverse events that occur during any phase of an organ transplantation case. ( 1 ) The policies must address, at a minimum, the process for the identification, reporting, analysis, and prevention of adverse events.
( 2 ) The transplant program must conduct a thorough analysis of and document any adverse event and must utilize the analysis to effect changes in the transplant program's policies and practices to prevent repeat incidents.
[72 FR 15273, Mar. 30, 2007, as amended at 84 FR 51822, Sept. 30, 2019]
#### Moody *v.*Mossey, Appellant.

*Deed*— Note *to deed.*

Where a deed grants land to the grantee and his heirs, an “N. B.” following the signatures and above the acknowledgment stating that the land is not to be sold by the grantee, but is to descend to his heirs by his wife, will not be considered a part of the deed.

Argued Nov. 2, 1908.

Appeal, No. 226, Oct. T., 1908, by-defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Allegheny Co., Fourth Term, 1908, No. 437, on case stated in suit of John Moody, Executor of the last Will and Testament of Andrew Stewart, v. James Mossey.

Before Mitchell, C. J., Fell, Brown, Mestrezat, Potter and Elkin, JJ.

Affirmed.

Case stated to determine marketable title to real estate.

The case turned upon whether a nota bene in the record of an ancient deed was a part of the deed.

The deed in question was as follows:

“This indenture made the twenty-second day of September in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety-eight. Between Charles Quinn and Elizabeth, his wife, of Robenson Township, in the County of Washington and State of Pennsylvania, of the one part, and John Stewart of Moon Township, in the County of Allegheny and State aforesaid, of the other part.

“Witnesseth: — etc., *. . . .”*

“In testimony whereof the said Charles Quinn and Elizabeth his wife, have hereuno set their hands and affixed their seals the day and year first above written (1798).

Signed, sealed and acknowledged in the presence of . William Littell, William Shite. Charles X Quin [seal] Elizabeth X Quin [seal]

“N. B. The above described piece of ground is not to be sold by John Stewart, but to descend from to his heirs by his *322wife Margaret Quin, now Stewart, it being given to said Stewart as a portion with his wife Margaret.

“Allegheny County, ss.:

“Personally came Charles Quinn and Elizabeth his wife, and acknowledged the above indenture to be their Act and Deed and desired that the same be recorded as such.

“Witness my hand and seal this 8th day of November, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred ninety-eight.

“[l. s.] William Littell.

“Recorded the 5th day of December, a. d. 1798.”

Swearingen, J., filed the following opinion:

We do not think that the “N. B.” attached to exhibit "A” in the case stated is part of the deed from Charles Quinn et ux to John Stewart, dated September 22, 1798; and, therefore, judgment should be entered in favor of the plaintiff and against defendant — amount to be liquidated by the prothonotary.

Let judgment be entered accordingly.

*Error assigned*was the judgment of the court.

*Charles T. Moore*for appellant,

cited: Ivory v. Burns, 56 Pa. 300; Gray v. Foster, 10 Watts, 280.

*W. H. S. Thomson,*with him *Frank Thomson,*for appellee,

were' not heard.

January 4, 1909:

Per Curiam,

The judgment is affirmed on the opinion of the court below.