alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-20-0000553

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

JIMMY FILOMENO ENOCENCIO, Plaintiff-Counterclaim

Defendant/Appellant, v.

KAMEHAMEHA SCHOOLS BISHOP ESTATE, AKA: KSBE;

PRESIDENT, OFFICERS, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, TRUSTEES, AND

DOES 1-10 INCLUSIVE; KAMEHAMEHA SCHOOLS-LAND ASSET

DIVISION-HAWAI#I ISLAND, AKA: KS-LAD-HI NAMELY,

MARISSA HARMON, LEANNE OKAMOTO, ALAPAKI NAHALE#A,

JAIME WONG, DALE FERGUSTROM, TANYA ANDRADE, KA#E#O DUARTE,

NEIL HANNAHS, Defendants-Counterclaimants/Appellees,

and DOES 1-10 INCLUSIVE, Defendants

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT

(CIVIL NO. 3CC181000090)

ORDER DISMISSING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(By: Hiraoka, Presiding Judge, Wadsworth and Nakasone, JJ.)

Upon consideration of the "Opposition to Appellate

Court Upholding Decision Granting Motion to Dismiss" (Motion),

filed April 5, 2021, by self-represented Plaintiff-Counterclaim

Defendant-Appellant Jimmy Filomeno Enocencio (Enocencio), which

we construe as a second motion to reconsider the court's

March 18, 2021 Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Appeal (Order),

the papers in support, and the record, it appears the Motion is

unauthorized. See Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure

Rule 40(e) ("Only one motion for reconsideration may be filed by

any party, unless the court modifies the substance of its

opinion, dispositional order, or ruling."). On March 28, 2021,

Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-20-0000553

23-APR-2021

08:15 AM

Dkt. 69 ODSMR
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Enocencio filed a motion to reconsider the Order, which the court

denied, and the court has not modified the Order.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is

dismissed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, April 23, 2021.

/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka

Presiding Judge

/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth

Associate Judge

/s/ Karen T. Nakasone

Associate Judge

2
#### Matter of the Petition of Joseph Auerbach to Revoke and Cancel the Liquor Tax Certificate No. 6615, Issued to Johannes H. Johannsen.

(Supreme Court, New York Special Term,

March, 1900.)

Liquor Tax Law — Stay not granted after cancellation of certificate.

Where an order, cancelling a liquor tax certificate for false answersln the application, has been entered and served, the court has no-power to stay proceedings, pending an appeal from the order, as it is-self-executing and upon its entry and service the rights of the holder cease by statute.

Pbooeedings under the Liquor Tax Law (L. 1896, ch. 112) to-revoke and cancel a- liquor tax certificate. Hotion by respondent for a stay of proceedings, pending an appeal

William S. Gordon, for petitioner.

Bisohoff, J.

After entry and service of an order cancellinga liquor tax certificate in a proceeding instituted under section 28 of the Liquor Tax Law, the respondent seeks a stay of proceedings-pending his appeal from the order, but it appears that a stay cannot affect the situation and the motion should, therefore, be denied. Under the provisions of the Liquor Tax Law, § 28, subd. 2, the order is self-executing, and upon its entry and due.service the rights of the holder by virtue of the certificate “ shall cease.” Therefore,, a stay, operating only upon future proceedings, cannot affect the-legal status of the party as already fixed by law, and, with or without a stay, his further acts under the certificate would be in violation of the penal provisions of the statute. Application denied, with, ten dollars costs.

Application denied, with ten dollars costs.
§ 21.7720 Course approval. ( a ) *Courses must be approved.* ( 1 ) A course of education offered by an educational institution must be approved by— ( i ) The State approving agency for the State in which the educational institution is located; or
( ii ) The State approving agency which has appropriate approval authority; or
( iii ) VA, where appropriate.
( 2 ) In determining when approval authority rests with the State approving agency or VA, the provisions of § 21.4250 (b)(3), (c)(2)(i), (c)(2)(ii), (c)(2)(iii), and (c)(2)(iv) apply.
( 3 ) A course approved under 38 U.S.C. chapter 36 is approved for purposes of 10 U.S.C. chapter 1606 (or 10 U.S.C. chapter 106 as in effect before December 1, 1994). (Authority: 10 U.S.C. 2131(c), 2136(b); 16131(c)(1), 16136(b); 38 U.S.C. 3672; sec. 705(a)(1), Pub. L. 98-525, 98 Stat. 2565, 2567; sec. 642, Pub. L. 101-189, 103 Stat. 1456-1458)
( b ) *Course approval criteria.* In administering benefits payable under 10 U.S.C. chapter 1606 (or 10 U.S.C. chapter 106 as in effect before December 1, 1994), VA and, where appropriate, the State approving agencies, shall apply the following sections: ( 1 ) § 21.4250 (except paragraph (c)(1))—Approval of courses;
( 2 ) § 21.4251—Period of operation of course;
( 3 ) § 21.4253 (except those portions of paragraphs (b) and (f) that permit approval of a course leading to a high school diploma)—Accredited courses;
( 4 ) § 21.4254—Nonaccredited courses;
( 5 ) § 21.4255—Refund policy; nonaccredited courses;
( 6 ) § 21.4258—Notice of approval;
( 7 ) § 21.4259—Suspension or disapproval;
( 8 ) § 21.4260—Courses in foreign countries;
( 9 ) § 21.4261—Apprentice courses;
( 10 ) § 21.4262—Other training on-the-job courses;
( 11 ) § 21.4265—Practical training approved as institutional training or on-job training;
( 12 ) § 21.4266—Courses offered at subsidiary branches or extensions; and
( 13 ) § 21.4267—Approval of independent study.
(Authority: 10 U.S.C. 16131(c)(1), 16136(b); 38 U.S.C. 3670 through 3676)
[61 FR 29310, June 10, 1996, as amended at 62 FR 55762, Oct. 28, 1997]
UAVSA Release 1.3 June 2015

Pre-flight Checklist

A. Weather

i. Check weather to ensure safe operating conditions.

B. Location

i. Check for nearest airport

ii. Notify property manager of arrival and daily expectations.

iii. Check property and surrounding areas for radio towers, buildings, power 

lines, and other obstructions.

iv. Designate a safe takeoff and landing location.

v. Clean up all trash and debris from area.

C. Radios

i. Remove from case.

ii. Turn on radios.

iii. Ensure radios are on proper aircraft model.

iv. Ensure radios have proper battery voltage.

v. Ensure radios are transmitting on proper frequencies.

vi. Ensure radio switches are all operational.

D. Ground stations

i. Remove from case.

ii. Plug batteries into ground stations.

iii. Check antennas on ground stations for serviceability.

iv. Turn on ground stations.

v. Ensure ground stations are on proper receiving channels.

E. Aircraft

ii. Remove aircraft from case.

iii. Set up aircraft.

iv. Check aircraft hardware for proper security.

v. Check aircraft components for proper security.

vi. Check propellers for any indications of chips, cracks, or wear beyond safe 

serviceability.

vii. Check camera for full battery.

viii. Check camera for SD card.

ix. Check camera for clean lens.
UAVSA Release 1.3 June 2015

x. Secure camera in gimbal.

xi. Check flight battery for proper overall voltage and voltage of individual 

cells.

xii. Check video transmitter battery for proper overall voltage and voltage of 

individual cells.

xiii. Plug in batteries and let aircraft initialize.

xiv. Calibrate aircraft to location.

xv. Ensure proper satellites acquired.

xvi. Ensure OSD is displaying all accurate information.

xvii. Turn on camera.

xviii. Ensure operation of camera gimbal.

xix. Ensure ground stations are receiving video signals from cameras.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 19

- 60627 Summary Calendar

**Shafiqul Islam,**

Petitioner **,**

versus

**Robert M. Wilkinson ,**  Acting U.S. Attorney General **,**
Respondent

**.**

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A201 526 104

Before **King, Smith,** and **Wilson,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *
Shafiqul Islam , a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of the decision and order of the immigration judge (IJ) denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 26, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-60627 Document: 00515720835 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/26/2021No. 19

- 60627

2 Tort ure (CAT) relief. Because Islam does not substantively challenge the

BIA’s dismissal of either his CAT claim or his claim tha t the IJ violated his due process rights, he has abandoned those claims. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft , 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003)

. Although Islam argues that the IJ lacked sufficient justification to require that he provide reasonably available evidence in support of his application and, alternatively, that the IJ erroneously determined that such
evidence was reasonably a vailable, he did not raise these arguments before
the BIA , and we lack jurisdiction to consider them. See Yang v. Holder , 664 F.3d 580, 588 (5th Cir. 2011) ; 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). Islam fails to show that the denial of asylum was unsupported by substanti al evidence. See Zhang v.
Gonzales , 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005) . He, therefore, necessarily also fails to show that he was entitled to withholding of removal. See Yang , 664
F.3d at 588

- 89.
The petition for review is **DENIED** in part and **DISMISSED** i n part for lack of jurisdiction

. Case: 19-60627 Document: 00515720835 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/26/2021
Editorial Note on Part 51
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 51 appear at 74 FR 19432, Apr. 29, 2009.

§ 51.190 Infection control. The facility management must establish and maintain an infection control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of disease and infection. ( a ) *Infection control program.* The facility management must establish an infection control program under which it— ( 1 ) Investigates, controls, and prevents infections in the facility;
( 2 ) Decides what procedures, such as isolation, should be applied to an individual resident; and
( 3 ) Maintains a record of incidents and corrective actions related to infections.
( b ) *Preventing spread of infection.* ( 1 ) When the infection control program determines that a resident needs isolation to prevent the spread of infection, the facility management must isolate the resident.
( 2 ) The facility management must prohibit employees with a communicable disease or infected skin lesions from engaging in any contact with residents or their environment that would transmit the disease.
( 3 ) The facility management must require staff to wash their hands after each direct resident contact for which hand washing is indicated by accepted professional practice.
( c ) *Linens.* Personnel must handle, store, process, and transport linens so as to prevent the spread of infection.
(The Office of Management and Budget has approved the information collection requirements in this section under control number 2900-0160) (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 101, 501, 1710, 1741-1743)
[65 FR 968, Jan. 6, 2000, as amended at 74 FR 19434, Apr. 29, 2009]
§ 42.31 Determining the amount of penalties and assessments. ( a ) In determining an appropriate amount of civil penalties and assessments, the ALJ and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, upon appeal, should evaluate any circumstances that mitigate or aggravate the violation and should articulate in their opinions the reasons that support the penalties and assessments they impose. Because of the intangible costs of fraud, the expense of investigating the conduct, and the need to deter others who might be similarly tempted, ordinarily double damages and a significant civil penalty should be imposed.
( b ) Although not exhaustive, the following factors are among those that may influence the ALJ and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs in determining the amount of penalties and assessments to impose with respect to the misconduct (*i.e.*, the false, fictitious, or fraudulent claims or statements) charged in the complaint: ( 1 ) The number of false, fictitious, or fraudulent claims or statements;
( 2 ) The time period over which the claims or statements were made;
( 3 ) The degree of the defendant's culpability with respect to the misconduct;
( 4 ) The amount of money or the value of the property, services, or benefit falsely claimed;
( 5 ) The value of the Government's actual loss as a result of the misconduct, including foreseeable consequential damages and the costs of investigation;
( 6 ) The relationship of the amount imposed as civil penalties to the amount of the Government's loss;
( 7 ) The potential or actual impact of the misconduct upon national defense, public health or safety, or public confidence in the management of Government programs and operations, including particularly the impact on the intended beneficiaries of the programs;
( 8 ) Whether the defendant has engaged in a pattern of the same or similar misconduct;
( 9 ) Whether the defendant attempted to conceal the misconduct;
( 10 ) The degree to which the defendant has involved others in the misconduct or in concealing it;
( 11 ) Where the misconduct of employees or agents is imputed to the defendant, the extent to which the defendant's practices fostered or attempted to preclude such misconduct;
( 12 ) Whether the defendant cooperated in or obstructed an investigation of the misconduct;
( 13 ) Whether the defendant assisted in identifying or prosecuting other wrongdoers;
( 14 ) The complexity of the program or transaction, and the degree of the defendant's sophistication with respect to it, including the extent of the defendant's prior participation in the program or in similar transactions;
( 15 ) Whether the defendant has been found, in any criminal, civil, or administrative proceeding to have engaged in similar misconduct or to have dealt dishonestly with the Government of the United States or of a State, directly or indirectly; and
( 16 ) The need to deter the defendant and others from engaging in the same or similar misconduct.
#### August Trenkmann, Appellant, *v.*Minnie L. Schneider, Respondent.

Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment of the General Term of-the City Court of the city of New York, affirming a judgment rendered upon the verdict of a jury in favor of the defendant.

Edward S. Clinch, for appellant.

Theodore Sutro, for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The only exception taken by the plaintiff, during the course of the trial was to the denial of the motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, which, however, raises no question for review here. Kraetzer v. Thomas, 23 Misc. Rep. 329.

The plaintiff did not at the close of the evidence move for a direction of a verdict in his favor. Hence there was a concession on his part that these were questions of fact which should be passed upon by the jury.

Every request made by the plaintiff was charged by the trial justice, and having taken no exception to the charge, he must be deemed to have been satisfied with it, and the manner in which the case was submitted to the jury.

The judgment rendered at the Trial Term of the City Court of New York having been affirmed by that court at General Term, *742we cannot, in the absence of a proper exception, consider the other grounds urged by the appellant upon this appeal. Machauer v. Fogel, 21 Misc. Rep. 637; Kraetzer v. Thomas, *supra.*

The judgment must, therefore, be affirmed, with costs.

Present: Beekman, P. J., Giegerich and O’Gorman, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Editorial Note on Part 36
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 36 appear at 61 FR 7217, Feb. 27, 1996, and 86 FR 51275, Sept. 15, 2021.

§ 36.4210 Joint loans. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the prior approval of the Secretary is required in respect to any manufactured home loan to be made to two or more borrowers who become jointly and severally liable, or jointly liable therefor, and who will acquire an undivided interest in the property to be purchased or who will otherwise share in the proceeds of the loan, or in respect to any loan to be made to an eligible veteran whose interest in the property owned, or to be acquired with the loan proceeds, is an undivided interest only. The amount of the guaranty shall be computed in such cases only on that portion of the loan allocable to the eligible veteran which, taking into consideration all relevant factors, represents the proper contribution of the veteran to the transaction. Such loans shall be secured to the extent required by 38 U.S.C. chapter 37 and the regulations concerning guaranty of manufactured home loans to veterans.
( b ) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section, the joinder of the spouse of a veteran-borrower in the ownership of property shall not require prior approval or preclude the issuance of a guaranty based upon the entire amount of the loan. If both spouses be eligible veterans, either or both, within permissible maxima, may utilize available guaranty entitlement.
( c ) For the purpose of determining the rights and the liabilities of the Secretary with respect to a loan subject to paragraph (a) of this section, credits legally applicable to the entire loan shall be applied as follows: ( 1 ) Prepayments made expressly for credit to that portion of the indebtedness allocable to the veteran shall be applied to such portion of the indebtedness. All other payments shall be applied ratably to those portions of the loan allocable respectively to the veteran and to the other debtors.
( 2 ) Proceeds of the sale or other liquidation of the security shall be applied ratably to the respective portions of the loan, such portion of the proceeds as represents the interest of the veteran being applied to that portion of the loan allocable to such veteran.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3703(c)(1))
[44 FR 22725, Apr. 17, 1979, as amended at 55 FR 37473, Sept. 12, 1990]
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 186 (Monday, September 28, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49403-49404]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-23360]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration


Announcement Regarding States Triggering ``on'' to the second-
tier of Emergency Unemployment Compensation 2008 (EUC08)

AGENCY: Employment and Training Administration, Labor.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Announcement regarding the Virgin Islands triggering ``on'' to 
the second-tier of Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC08).
    Public law 110-449 created a second-tier of benefits within the 
EUC08 program for qualified unemployed workers claiming benefits in 
high unemployment states. The Department of Labor produces a trigger 
notice indicating which states qualify for this second-tier of EUC08 
benefits and provides the beginning and ending dates

[[Page 49404]]

of the second-tier period for each state. The trigger notice covering 
state eligibility for the second-tier of the EUC08 program can be found 
at: http://ows.doleta.gov/unemploy/claims_arch.asp. A new trigger 
notice is posted at this location each week that the program is in 
effect.
    For weeks of unemployment beginning August 23, 2009, claimants in 
the Virgin Islands are potentially eligible for up to 13 weeks of 
additional benefits within the second-tier of the EUC08 program.

Information for Claimants

    The duration of benefits payable in the EUC program, and the terms 
and conditions under which they are payable, are governed by public 
laws 110-252 and 110-449, and the operating instructions issued to the 
states by the U.S. Department of Labor. The State Workforce Agency in 
states beginning a high unemployment period will furnish a written 
notice of potential entitlement to each individual who is potentially 
eligible for second-tier EUC08 benefits. Persons who believe they may 
be entitled to additional benefits under the EUC08 program, or who wish 
to inquire about their rights under the program, should contact their 
State Workforce Agency.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Gibbons, U.S. Department of 
Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Office of Workforce 
Security, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Frances Perkins Bldg. Room S-
4231, Washington, DC 20210, telephone number (202) 693-3008 (this is 
not a toll-free number) or by e-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#51363833333e3f227f22323e252511353e3d7f363e27"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c4a3ada6a6abaab7eab7a7abb0b084a0aba8eaa3abb2">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 23rd day of September, 2009.
Jane Oates,
Assistant Secretary, Employment and Training Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-23360 Filed 9-25-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FW-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### ALABAMA NOVELTY CO. V. DAVIS.

(Decided April 18, 1912.)

Appeal from Birmingham City Court.

Heard before Hon. Robert N. Bell, Special Judge.

No counsel marked for either party.

Per curiam.

Affirmed on certificate.
§ 20.1401 Rule 1401. Definitions. ( a ) *Issue.* Unless otherwise specified, the term “issue” in this subpart means a matter upon which the Board made a final decision (other than a decision under this subpart). As used in the preceding sentence, a “final decision” is one which was appealable under Chapter 72 of title 38, United States Code, or which would have been so appealable if such provision had been in effect at the time of the decision.
( b ) *Party.* As used in this subpart, the term “party” means any party to the proceeding before the Board that resulted in the final Board decision which is the subject of a motion under this subpart.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), 7104(a))
[57 FR 4109, Feb. 3, 1992, as amended at 84 FR 192, Jan. 18, 2019]
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 186 (Monday, September 28, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 49363]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-23384]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration


National Renewable Energy Laboratory, et al.

Notice of Decision on Application for Duty-Free Entry of an 
Electron Microscope

This is a decision consolidated pursuant to Section 6(c) of the 
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 
(Pub. L. 89-651, as amended by Pub. L. 106-36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR 
part 301). Related records can be viewed between 8:30 A.M. and 5:00 
P.M. in Room 3705, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution 
Avenue., NW, Washington, D.C.
Docket Number: 09-047. Applicant: Washington State University, Pullman, 
WA 99164. Instrument: Electron Microscope. Manufacturer: FEI Company, 
Czech Republic. Intended Use: See notice at 74 FR 44350, August 28, 
2009.
Comments: None received. Decision: Approved. No instrument of 
equivalent scientific value to the foreign instrument, for such 
purposes as this instrument is intended to be used, was being 
manufactured in the United States at the time the instrument was 
ordered. Reasons: The foreign instrument is an electron microscope and 
is intended for research or scientific educational uses requiring an 
electron microscope. We know of no electron microscope or any other 
instrument suited to these purposes, which was being manufactured in 
the United States at the time of order of this instrument.

    Dated: September 22, 2009.
Christopher D. Cassel,
Director.
Subsidies Enforcement Office.
Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-23384 Filed 9-25-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S