alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARINE MAZAN,

Petitioner,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 14

- 73527 Agency No. A088

- 478

- 905

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted December 12, 2019

Pasadena, California Before: KELLY, * * PAEZ, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Carine Mazan , a native and citizen of France, entered the United States

u nder the Visa Waiver Program. About three years after her arrival, she filed an application for asylum , withholding

- of

- removal, and withholding

- of

- removal
under The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The Honorable Paul J. Kelly, Jr., United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

JUN 8 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPE ALS2

Treatment or Punishment ( CAT)

. The Immigration Judge (IJ) found Mazan
competent to proceed and denied her application. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s denial. We deny Mazan’s petition for review.
1. After reviewing the supplemental briefs, we conclude we have jurisdiction over Mazan’s petition for review. 1 We agree with the government that the referral of Mazan to an IJ for consideration of her asylum application in conjunction with the agency’s den ial of her application is the functional equivalent
of a final order of removal. See Bao Ta i Nian v. Holder , 683 F.3d 1227 , 1229

– 30 (9th Cir. 2012) ; Nicusor

- Remus v. Sessions , 902 F.3d 895, 898

– 99 (9th Cir. 2018).
2. The IJ did not err in conducting the competency inquiry required by Matter of M

- A

- M

- , 25 I. & N. Dec. 474 (BIA 2011). The IJ noted that Mazan had presented an “indicia of incompetency,” and proceeded to evaluate whether Mazan had a rational understanding of the nature and object of the proceedings. She reviewed Mazan’s personal and medical history and allowed Mazan a reasonable opportunity to consult with an attorney and examine and present relevant evidence.
Because the IJ concluded Mazan was competent to proceed, she was not required to select and employ safeguards for the proceeding. Id. at 481

– 82. In addition,

s ubstantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Mazan was competent

.

1 Although not germane to our jurisdictional holding, we grant the government’s request for judicial notice, Dkt. No. 93.3

3. We decline to review whether M azan was entitled to counsel under the Rehabilitation Act. This issue is raised only by an amicus curiae , and was not adopted by Mazan in her briefing

. See, e

. g. , Russian River Watershed Prot. Comm. v. City of Santa Rosa , 142 F.3d 1136, 1141 (9th Cir. 19 98); s ee also
Artichoke Joe ’s Cal. Grand Casino v. Norton , 353 F.3d 712, 719 n.10 (9th Cir. 2003) (“In the absence of exceptional circumstances, which are not present here, we do not address issues raised only in an amicus brief.”). The petition for revie w is DENIED.
Exhibit 32.1

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 Repligen Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2010 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned officers of the Company hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, to the undersigneds knowledge, 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.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |     |  |                                             
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | --------------------------------------------
|Date: August 5, 2010 |  | By: |  | /s/ Walter C. Herlihy                       
|                     |  |     |  | Walter C. Herlihy                           
|                     |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer and President       
|                     |  |     |  | (Principal executive officer)               
|                     |  |    
|Date: August 5, 2010 |  | By: |  | /s/ William J. Kelly                        
|                     |  |     |  | William J. Kelly                            
|                     |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer                     
|                     |  |     |  | (Principal financial and accounting officer)
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2312 

To make permanent the individual income tax rates for capital gains and 

dividends. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 15, 2007 

Mr. CANTOR (for himself, Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin, Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania, and Mr. BLUNT) introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To make permanent the individual income tax rates for 

capital gains and dividends. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX RATES FOR CAPITAL 

4 GAINS AND DIVIDENDS MADE PERMANENT. 

5 The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act 

6 of 2003 is amended by striking section 303. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
Date:  August  12,  2003
To:  Peter  Dermutz
From:  Steve  Meineke
Subject:  Amendment  to  Employment  Agreement  related  to  Stock  Options

This  will  memorialize  an  agreement between Rapidtron, Inc. and Peter Dermutz
that  amends  the  Employment Agreement dated January 17, 2003 between Rapidtron
and  John  Creel, as amended on April 11, 2003 (the "Agreement"). Section 5.c of
the  Agreement  is  amended  to  extend  the time for Rapidtron to adopt a stock
option  plan  from  July  31,  2003,  until  no  later  than September 15, 2003.

By  signing  below,  each  party hereby acknowledges and agrees to the foregoing
amendment.  Except as expressly modified herein, the Agreement shall continue in
full  force  and effect and the parties hereby ratify and reaffirm the Agreement
as  modified  herein.

RAPIDTRON,  INC.



               By:  /s/  Steve  Meineke
                    -----------------------------------------
                    Steve  Meineke,  Secretary  &  Treasurer





ACKNOWLEDGED  AND  AGREED:



                    /s/  Peter  Dermutz
                    -------------------------------------------
                    Peter  Dermutz,  an  individual


<PAGE>
99–008

107TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 107–365

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO

SUSPEND THE RULES

MARCH 5, 2002.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

Mr. SESSIONS, from the Committee on Rules,

submitted the following

R E P O R T

[To accompany H. Res. 354]

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House

Resolution 354, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted.

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution provides that the following measures may be considered under suspension of the rules at any time on the legislative

day of Wednesday, March 6, 2002:

(1) The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 32) congratulating the United

States Military Academy at West Point on its bicentennial anniversary, and commending its outstanding contributions to the Nation.

(2) The bill (S. 1857) to encourage the negotiated settlement of

tribal claims.

(3) The bill (H.R. 1870) to provide for the sale of certain real

property within the Newlands Project in Nevada, to the city of

Fallon, Nevada.

(4) The bill (H.R. 1883) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior

to conduct a feasibility study on water optimization in the Burnt

River basin, Malheur River basin, Owyhee River basin, and Powder

River basin, Oregon.

(5) The bill (H.R. 1963) to amend the National Trails System Act

to designate the route taken by American soldier and frontiersman

George Rogers Clark and his men during the Revolutionary War to

capture the British forts at Kaskaskia and Cahokia, Illinois, and

Vincennes, Indiana, for study for potential addition to the National

Trails System.

(6) A bill to provide assistance to displaced workers by extending

unemployment benefits and by providing a credit for health insurance costs, and for other purposes.

2

(7) A resolution expressing support for the democratically elected

government of Colombia and its efforts to counter threats from

United States-designated foreign terrorist organizations.

Æ
§ 62.24 Who is eligible to apply for the Loan Repayment Program? ( a ) To be eligible to participate in the Loan Repayment Program an individual must: ( 1 ) ( i ) Be enrolled as a full-time student in the final year of a course of study or program approved by the Secretary which leads to a degree in allopathic or osteopathic medicine, dentistry or other health profession and which is offered by an accredited school in a State or
( ii ) Be enrolled in an approved graduate training program in allopathic or osteopathic medicine or dentistry or other health profession in a State, or
( iii ) Have a degree in allopathic or osteopathic medicine or dentistry or other health profession and have completed an approved graduate training program in a State (or received a waiver of the completion requirement under § 62.26(d) of this subpart) and have a current and valid license to practice such health profession in a State;
( 2 ) Be eligible for, or hold, an appointment as a commissioned officer in the Regular or Reserve Corps of the Public Health Service or be eligible for selection for civilian service in the National Health Service Corps;
( 3 ) Submit an application to participate in the Loan Repayment Program; and
( 4 ) Sign and submit to the Secretary, at the time of the submission of such application, a written contract agreeing to accept repayment of health professions educational loans and to serve (in accordance with this subpart) for the applicable period of obligated service in a health manpower shortage area as determined by the Secretary.
( b ) Any individual who owes an obligation for health professional service to the Federal Government or a State or other entity under an agreement with such Federal, State or other entity is ineligible for the Loan Repayment Program unless such obligation will be completely satisfied prior to the beginning of service under this Program.
( c ) Individuals in breach of a written contract entered into under section 338A of the Act and liable to the United States under section 338E(b) of the Act, in breach of a written contract entered into under section 225 of the Act (as in effect on September 30, 1977) and liable to the United States under section 225(f)(1) of the Act (as in effect on September 30, 1977) or in breach of any other obligation for health professional service to a Federal, State or local government entity are not eligible for participation in the Loan Repayment Program.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0915-0127)
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

#### § 41.200 Procedure; pendency.

(a) A patent interference is a contested case subject to the procedures set forth in subpart D of this part.

(b) Any reference to 35 U.S.C. 102 or 135 in this subpart refers to the statute in effect on March 15, 2013, unless otherwise expressly indicated. Any reference to 35 U.S.C. 141 or 146 in this subpart refers to the statute applicable to the involved application or patent.

(c) Patent interferences shall be administered such that pendency before the Board is normally no more than two years.

[69 FR 50003, Aug. 12, 2004, as amended at 75 FR 19559, Apr. 15, 2010; 80 FR 17971, Apr. 2, 2015]
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 95-50874

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

BUDDY RAY GUNN,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. SA-93-CR-34

- - - - - - - - - -

June 21, 1996

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Buddy Ray Gunn appeals from the district court's denial of

his motion for a new trial, filed pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P.

33. He contends that the district court abused its discretion by

denying his motion without a hearing, as he presented newly

discovered evidence that was material and which would probably

have resulted in either his acquittal or the mitigation of his

sentence. The district court did not abuse its discretion by
No. 95-50874

- 2 -

denying the motion without a hearing as review of the evidence

demonstrates that it was not material and would not have changed

the result of Gunn’s trial or sentence. See United States v.

MMR Corp., 954 F.2d 1040, 1046-47 (5th Cir. 1992).

AFFIRMED.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2269 

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to reduce the limit 

on the amount of certain contributions which may be made to a candidate 

with respect to an election for Federal office. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 10, 2007 

Mr. CAPUANO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on House Administration 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to 

reduce the limit on the amount of certain contributions 

which may be made to a candidate with respect to an 

election for Federal office. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. REDUCTION IN CONTRIBUTION LIMITS FOR 

4 CONTRIBUTIONS TO INDIVIDUAL CAN5 DIDATES. 

6 (a) REDUCTION IN LIMIT.—Section 315(a)(1)(A) of 

7 the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2269 IH

1 441a(a)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ‘‘$2,000’’ and in2 serting ‘‘$1,000’’. 

3 (b) APPLICATION OF INDEXING.— 

4 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 315(c)(1)(B) of such 

5 Act (2 U.S.C. 441a(c)(1)(B)) is amended by striking 

6 ‘‘after 2002’’ and inserting ‘‘after 2002 (or, in the 

7 case of the limitation established under subsection 

8 (a)(1)(A), after 2010)’’. 

9 (2) DETERMINATION OF BASE PERIOD.—Sec10 tion 315(c)(2)(B) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 

11 441a(c)(2)(B)) is amended— 

12 (A) in clause (i), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the 

13 end; 

14 (B) in clause (ii)— 

15 (i) by striking ‘‘(a)(1)(A),’’, and 

16 (ii) by striking the period at the end 

17 and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

18 (C) by adding at the end the following new 

19 clause: 

20 ‘‘(iii) for purposes of subsection (a)(1)(A), 

21 calendar year 2009.’’. 

22 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

23 The amendments made by this Act shall apply with 

24 respect to elections occurring after December 2008. 

Æ 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
CHIEF JUSTICE

 ROGELIO VALDEZ

JUSTICES

 NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

 DORI CONTRERAS GARZA

 GINA M. BENAVIDES

 GREGORY T. PERKES

 NORA L. LONGORIA

CLERK

 DORIAN E. RAMIREZ

NUECES COUNTY COURTHOUSE

901 LEOPARD, 10TH FLOOR

CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 78401

361-888-0416 (TEL)

361-888-0794 (FAX)

HIDALGO COUNTY

ADMINISTRATION BLDG.

100 E. CANO, 5TH FLOOR

EDINBURG, TEXAS 78539

956-318-2405 (TEL)

956-318-2403 (FAX)

www.txcourts.gov/13thcoa

Court of Appeals 

Thirteenth District of Texas 

March 26, 2015

Hon. Raymond L. Thomas Jr.

Kittleman, Thomas & Gonzalez, LLP

4900-B N. 10th St.

McAllen, TX 78504

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Hon. Raul Medina

Attorney at Law

3101 N. Jackson Road

McAllen, TX 78501

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Hon. Ricardo Pumarejo Jr.

Kittleman, Thomas & Gonzalez, PLLC

4900-B N. 10th Street

McAllen, TX 78504

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Hon. Benigno Trey Martinez

Martinez, Barrera & Martinez

120 E. Van Buren

Brownsville, TX 78520

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Hon. George M. Bishop

Attorney At Law

4191 F.M. 1155 South

Chappell Hill, TX 77426

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Re: Cause No. 13-13-00552-CV

Tr.Ct.No. C-361-11-B

Style: Nolana Open MRI Center, Inc. v. Guillermo R. Pechero M.D.Ruben D. 

Pechero M.D. Maplestar Orthopedics, P. A.

Intervenor’s motion to intervene and motion for rehearing in the above cause was 

this day DENIED by this Court.

Very truly yours,

Dorian E. Ramirez, Clerk

DER:ch
#### § 381.11 Notice of restrictions on use of reproductions of transmission programs.

Any public broadcasting entity which, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 118, supplies a reproduction of a transmission program to governmental bodies or nonprofit institutions shall include with each copy of the reproduction a warning notice stating in substance that the reproductions may be used for a period of not more than seven days from the specified date of transmission, that the reproductions must be destroyed by the user before or at the end of such period, and that a failure to fully comply with these terms shall subject the body or institution to the remedies for infringement of copyright.
#### William Leonard *against*Andrew Ware.

ON CERTIORARI.

What suffidemand, (c)

Money paid by constable at request of eoyerabíe’ (b)

WALL and *Pearson*for plaintiff. *Armstrong*for defendant.

(b)

*Lawrence vs. Jones, 2 South. 827. Wooley vs. Disbrey, Pen. *383. Rittenhouse vs. Schamp, Pen. *979. Harris vs. Champion, post 153. Cook vs. Linn, 4 Har. 11. Force vs. Haines, 2 Har. 385.*

(c)

*Denny vs. Quintin, 4 Dutch. 134. Tichenor vs. Colfax, post 153.*

Opinion of the Court,

S°UTHA:R:D J-

Two reasons.are relied on for the reversal.

1. The insufficiency of the state of demand. It is general for money paid &c.; but there is a bill of particulars' or specification of items, referred to in it, and annexed to it. This specification is really and truly a part of the state of demand, and it sets out the executions on which the money was paid; with their dates, amounts, justices who issued them, &c. It is full for all the purposes for which a state of demand is designed. It gives to the defendant, full information of every matter necessary for the preparation of his defence.

2. The money was paid by the plaintiff, a constable, on ex*ecutions against the defendant, and as he was not bound to pay, he cannot recover.

The principle contained in this reason, has often been laid down, and is repeated in *Harris*against *Champion,*at this term. But it will not avail the defendant here. A request by the defendant, to pay the money, is expressly laid in the state of demand; and being a material part of it, we here presume that it was proved. If proved, it authorized a recovory. If not proved, the plaintiff in *certiorari*ought to have shewn the fact to the court. (a)

No reason is perceived why the judgment ought to be , reversed.

Let it be affirmed.

(a)

*State vs. Mayhew, 4 Hal. 78.*
§ 488.840 Suspension of payment for all new patient admissions. ( a ) *Application.* ( 1 ) CMS may suspend payment for all new admissions if an HHA is found to have condition-level deficiencies, regardless of whether those deficiencies pose immediate jeopardy.
( 2 ) CMS will consider this sanction for any deficiency related to poor patient care outcomes, regardless of whether the deficiency poses immediate jeopardy.
( b ) *Procedures* — ( 1 ) *Notices.* ( i ) Before suspending payments for new admissions, CMS provides the HHA notice of the suspension of payment for all new admissions as set forth in § 488.810(f). The CMS notice of suspension will include the nature of the noncompliance; the effective date of the sanction; and the right to appeal the determination leading to the sanction.
( ii ) The HHA may not charge a newly admitted HHA patient who is a Medicare beneficiary for services for which Medicare payment is suspended unless the HHA can show that, before initiating care, it gave the patient or his or her representative oral and written notice of the suspension of Medicare payment in a language and manner that the beneficiary or representative can understand.
( 2 ) *Restriction.* ( i ) Suspension of payment for all new admissions sanction may be imposed anytime an HHA is found to be out of substantial compliance.
( ii ) Suspension of payment for patients with new admissions will remain in place until CMS determines that the HHA has achieved substantial compliance or is involuntarily terminated with the conditions of participation, as determined by CMS.
( 3 ) *Resumption of payments.* Payments to the HHA resume prospectively on the date that CMS determines that the HHA has achieved substantial compliance with the conditions of participation.
( c ) *Duration and effect of sanction.* This sanction ends when— ( 1 ) CMS determines that the HHA is in substantial compliance with all of the conditions of participation; or
( 2 ) When the HHA is terminated or CMS determines that the HHA is not in compliance with the conditions of participation at a maximum of 6 months from the date noncompliance was determined.
TEXT ONLY

| Last updated: 06/25/2004        doj/jmd/ls/tvu | UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSIONRULES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL        AUGUST 15, 2003

United States Parole Commission's         Rules and Procedures Manual (August 15, 2003)

Rules and Procedures Memo 2003-01         (April 14, 2004) |
|------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|