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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

MANUEL SANCHEZ

- MENDOZA,

Petitioner,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 15

- 73387 Agency No. A200

- 245

- 305

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 7, 2022 * * Pasadena, California Before: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and GRABER and BEA, Circuit Judges. Petitioner, Manuel Sanchez

- Mendoza, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his claim for withholding of removal.

“ We determine our own jurisdiction de novo. ” Ruiz

- Morales v. Ashcroft , 361 F.3d 1219, 1221 (9th Cir. 2 004) (citation omitted)

. “ A petitioner’s failure to raise an issue

* 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

APR 13 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

before the BIA generally constitutes a failure to exhaust, thus depriving this court of jurisdiction to consider the issue.” Sola v. Holder , 720 F.3d 1134, 1135 (9th Cir. 2013) (per curia m) . For the following reasons, we dismiss the petition.
The BIA held that Sanchez

- Mendoza made no assertion of clear error in the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) adverse credibility finding and , th erefore , the issue was
deemed waived. Sanchez

- Mendoza argue s, however, that the IJ did not make an explicit adverse credibility finding, so he did not need to raise the issue before the
BIA. “[T]he law of this circuit does not permit implicit adverse credibility determinations.” Shoafera v. INS , 228 F.3d 1070, 1074 n.3 (9th Cir. 2000) . An IJ must identify specific, cogent reasons supporting an adverse credibility
determination. Perez

-

Arceo v. Lynch , 821 F.3d 1178, 1186

– 87 (9th Cir. 2016). Here, the IJ made an explicit adverse credibility finding. In a separate section titled “Analysis and Findings,” the IJ included a subsection titled “Credibility.” In the “Credibility” section, the IJ stated that, “ [ a ] fter considering the totality of the evidence, the Court is no[t] satisfied that [Sanchez

- Mendoza] has provided credible testimony.” The IJ pointed to Sanchez

- Mendoza’s inconsistent testimony concerning his departures from the United States and multiple reentries. The IJ
further noted the inconsistencies in Sanchez

- Mendoza’s testimony concerning when
and how he was threatened in Mexico. Accordingly , the IJ made an adverse credibility finding and provided specific and cogent reasons supporting the3

determination. Id. at 1186

– 87. Because th e IJ made an adverse credibility finding,
Sanchez

- Mendoza was required to challenge the finding before the BIA in order to
exhaust his claim for withholding of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Sola , 720 F.3d
at 1134. Sanchez

- Mendoza failed to do so. Ther efore, we lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. Sola , 720 F.3d at 1135 (9th Cir. 2013) (dismissing petition for lack of jurisdiction).
PETITION DISMISSED

.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 79 (Monday, April 24, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 21778]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-10173]



[[Page 21778]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 
Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended 
(5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive 
and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; ZDK1 GRB-B (M1).
    Date: May 19, 2000.
    Time: 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Ramada Inn Hotel, 8400 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, 
Maryland 20814.
    Contact Person: Ned Feder, MD, Scientific Review Administrator, 
Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, Natcher Building Room 6AS25s, National 
Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594-8890.


(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, 
Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research, 93.848, Digestive 
Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology 
and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: April 17, 2000.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 00-10173 Filed 4-21-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
You havereached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC)Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC.Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suite ofcataloging and locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications.  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the eventthat publications are no longer available from the original publishing agencysite. (Historical purposes)
**Title:****Report to theCongress on ballistic missile defense [electronic resource]**
 
SuDoc:D 1.1/6:
ItemNumber:0306-A-17(online)
CGPsystem Number: 000604716
 
1994
1995
1997
#### § 1808.601 Assignment and transfer of Guarantee.

The Guarantee shall be fully assignable and transferrable to the capital markets, on terms and conditions that are consistent with comparable bonds guaranteed by the Federal Government and satisfactory to the Guarantor and the CDFI Fund.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-10289

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CHRISTOPHER ALEXANDER,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:01-CR-60-1

Before BENAVIDES, HAYNES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Christopher Alexander, federal prisoner #25906-177, appeals the district

court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentencing reduction

based upon Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines. He argues that:

(1) the district court could have lowered his sentence because Amendment 750

altered his base offense level; (2) the district court failed to mention the specific

circumstances that led it to decline to exercise its discretion to lower his

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 5, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 12-10289 Document: 00512074089 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/05/2012
No. 12-10289

sentence; and (3) the Government’s assertion that he was responsible for 4.11

kilograms of crack cocaine is erroneous.

A district court may grant a § 3582(c)(2) motion only “in the case of a

defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a

sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing

Commission.” § 3582(c)(2). This court reviews a district court’s decision

“whether to reduce a sentence pursuant to . . . § 3582(c)(2) for abuse of

discretion, . . . its interpretation of the Guidelines de novo, and its findings of

fact for clear error.” United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713, 717 (5th Cir.

2011) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “A district court abuses

its discretion if it bases its decision on an error of law or a clearly erroneous

assessment of the evidence.” Id. (citation omitted).

Alexander’s original guidelines range of imprisonment was 360 months to

life. Applying Amendment 750, his guidelines range of imprisonment is still 360

months to life. See U.S.S.G. Ch. 5, Pt. A. Therefore, the district court did not err

in concluding that Alexander was ineligible for a sentence reduction and did not

abuse its discretion in denying his motion.

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 12-10289 Document: 00512074089 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/05/2012
SES/CDP Application Intake Information

1. Job title in announcement 2. Announcement Number

Applicant Information

3. Name

4. Mailing Address (Use Standard State Postal Codes (abbreviations). If outside the United States of America, and you 

do not have to have a military address, type or print “OV” in the State field, leaving the ZIP code field blank.)

5. Phone numbers (include area code if within 

the United States of America)

City State ZIP Code Country

Evening

6. Email address (if available)

Education

7. Mark highest level completed

Catalog Number 50261V Department of the Treasury - Internal Revenue Service Form 13896 (6-2007)

This form solicits personal information from individuals applying for Senior Executive Service (SES) positions in the Internal Revenue 

Service or its SES Candidate Development Program. The authority to collect this information is 5 U.S.C. 301, 3131, 3301 and 3302. 

We need the information requested on this form to evaluate your qualifications. We may disclose this information to the Office of 

Personnel Management for review and certification of your Executive Core Qualifications. We may disclose this information to a former 

employer to confirm SES reinstatement eligibility, tenure of employment, civil service status, or length of service. We may also disclose 

this information to the Office of Special Counsel or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for adjudicating a complaint. You 

are not required to provide this information, however, failure to furnish the requested information may delay or prevent consideration of 

the application; providing false information may subject you to penalties. 

Privacy Act Notice

Street

Daytime

Last name First name Middle name

Some HS HS/GED Associate Bachelor Master Doctoral 

General

Other Qualifications

8. Are you a U.S. Citizen?

Job related education, publications, memberships in professional/honor societies, leadership activities, public speaking, 

etc. - give dates, but do not send documents or certificates.

9. Are you eligible for reinstatement in the career SES? If yes, 

attach copy of Notification of Personnel Action (SF 50) as proof.

10. Were you ever a Federal civilian employee? 

If yes, fill in the information below showing the highest civilian grade held.

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Series Grade From (mm/yyyy) To (mm/yyyy)
#### SPENCER’S ADMINISTRATOR *v.*BROOKS.

Security for an administrator — witness—money paid — money had and received *by^ inferred*from circumstances.

A security for the plaintiff in his administration bond, is not thereby rendered incompetent to testify for him.

To recover upon a count for money paid, &c. there must be proof that money has been paid by the plaintiff to, or for, the defendant.

A recovery may be had for money had and received, where it appears that the defendant received goods to dispose of to pay the plaintiff, if the goods have been sold, and a jury may infer the sale from the circumstances, and from the defendant’s omission to prove the goods on hand.

Assumpsit, for money paid, and for moneys had and received. Plea non assumpsit. On the trial, Woods was called by the plaintiff as a witness.

*179
      *Storer*and *Fox,*for the defendant,

objected to his competency, because he was security for the plaintiff, in his administration bond.

*Riddle*and *Starr,*for the plaintiff,

argued to the jury.

*Storer*and *Fox,*for the defendant,

insisted that there was no proof of money paid by the plaintiff’s intestate to or for the defendant, or that the defendant had received any money for the intestate, as it did not appear that the goods were sold. •

By the Court.

The incompetency of the witness does not appear plain to us. He neither gains or loses by the event of this suit. He may be sworn, and the point reserved to be discussed hereafter, if it be desired.

Proof was then introduced that the plaintiff’s intestate was security on a note of Marsh and Fobes, who were failing, and sent his agent to obtain indemnity. Marsh and Fobes agreed to turn out goods. The goods, were laid off, and the agent was to call again in the morning, and measure and invoice them. In the morning, he returned, and found the defendant with Marsh and Fobes, and was told that they had made other arrangements; that Marsh and Fobes owed other debts, on which the defendant was security, and he thought he could do better by the goods, and would take the whole and pay the note on which Spencer was security, out of the first proceeds, as that was first due. Upon Brooks’ promise to that effect, and the understanding of all the parties, the goods were left with the defendant, and the note remained unpaid. Spencer was to pay it.

Wright, J.

to the jiiry., There is no proof that the plaintiff’s intestate paid money to or for the defendant, and therefore the plaintiff cannot recover on that count; but as to the other count for money had and received, the plaintiff can recover, if you are satisfied the goods were received by the defendant in the way stated, and have been since sold or disposed of. Without direct proof of the sale of the goods, you may infer the fact, if from.all the circumstances it seems to you, either from the lapse of time, or from the omission by the defendant to prove that the goods remain on hand, a fact easy for him to prove, that the goods'have been sold, or that so many of them have been sold as will pay the plaintiff.

Yerdict for the plaintiff $328 24.

New trial moved for and overruled, and judgment on the verdict.
# Official Journal C 199/2020

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 199 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6312 June 2020 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 199

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6312 June 2020

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2020/C 199/01 | Commission Notice providing guidance on food safety management systems for food retail activities, including food donations | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2020/C 199/01

Commission Notice providing guidance on food safety management systems for food retail activities, including food donations

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 79 (Monday, April 24, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 21717]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-10046]


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

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS


Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Maine Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that a meeting of 
the Maine Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 2 p.m. 
and adjourn at 6:30 p.m. on Thursday, May 11, 2000, at the Holiday Inn 
By The Bay, 88 Spring Street, Portland, Maine 04101. The Committee will 
plan the press release of its report, Limited English Proficient 
Students in Maine: An Assessment of Equal Educational Opportunities, 
and discuss future program activities. In addition, the Committee will 
be briefed by invited civil rights advocates on the status of civil 
rights issues in Maine.
    Persons desiring additional information, or planning a presentation 
to the Committee, should contact Committee Chairperson Gerald Talbot, 
207-287-5984, or Ki-Taek Chun, Director of the Eastern Regional Office, 
202-376-7533 (TDD 202-376-8116). Hearing-impaired persons who will 
attend the meeting and require the services of a sign language 
interpreter should contact the Regional Office at least ten (10) 
working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission.

    Dated at Washington, DC, April 17, 2000.
Lisa M. Kelly,
Special Assistant to the Staff Director.
[FR Doc. 00-10046 Filed 4-21-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
RIZE

RISE

‘

32

= 36

Steamboat Rock
Recreation Area /
South

(s

Lower.

of4
Road {

[

TEE

20 a =
q a
¢ A
5 one 29
|__ a9 20 | Sy
fs G & 8
oy 4 x
36 .; v
« os 5 aS ° a
Ss Vie
tT yS
“4 Teprebonn
ce
3 2 6 5 | 4
4 +
Wy | |
(
‘se ; 2 [— l c ;
yy» LL 4 \ Ly
19 Vs om oe 8 |
>
< aP2|
z Po si
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
Legend PRINEVILLE DISTRICT
8 , 2005
Interim Guidance for Motorized Use mmm Recreation Area
of Existing Roads and Trails * ——— Highway or County Route W- E
BLM Routes Available for —— Road
Motorized Travel = Wilderness Study Area s
Limited to Class 1 and Class 3 Vehicles Urban Area os 6 os ;
~ on Designated Routes Administered Lands —_————— =
MILE!
[ON Closed Year Round [7] Bureau of Lana os ° os
S229) Limited to Designated Roads Management Peg
Only Year Round KILOMETERS,

* Management of the fand applies only to BLM
‘Administered Lands within the recreation area
boundary. This map does not distinguish
between OHV specific routes and routes
open to passenger vehicles.

[___] National Grassland
[EY State Land
{___] Private / Other

RMP Map 23B: Interim Guidance for Motorized Use of Existing
Roads and Trails for the
Steamboat Rock Recreation Area / South

Upper Deschutes
Resource Management Plan

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy,
reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use

with other data. Original data were compiled from various sources. This
information may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product
was developed through digital means and may be updated without notification,

‘MO5-04-02:MW.082905
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

                     [RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P. LETTERHEAD]

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS

Board of Directors
3TEC Energy Corporation
Houston, Texas

As independent petroleum engineers, we hereby consent to all references in the
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002, to Ryder Scott Company, L.P.
and/or our summary letters dated February 14, 2001, January 15, 2002, and
January 29, 2003, regarding our estimates of the proved oil and natural gas
reserves of 3TEC Energy Corporation as of December 31, 2000, 2001, and 2002,
respectively. We further consent to all references to Ryder Scott Company, L.P.
in previous filings that are incorporated by reference in the Form 10-K,
including our reserve estimates of the oil and natural gas properties acquired
by 3TEC Energy Corporation from Floyd Oil Company, Magellan Exploration, LLC,
and CWR Resources, Inc.


RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.

Houston, Texas
March 26, 2003
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 291 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 291

   To amend title 18, United States Code, to increase the mandatory 
minimum penalties provided for possessing, brandishing, or discharging 
    a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence or drug 
                           trafficking crime.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 8, 2003

  Mrs. Kelly introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 18, United States Code, to increase the mandatory 
minimum penalties provided for possessing, brandishing, or discharging 
    a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence or drug 
                           trafficking crime.

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

SECTION 1. INCREASE IN THE MANDATORY MINIMUM PENALTIES PROVIDED FOR 
              POSSESSING, BRANDISHING, OR DISCHARGING A FIREARM DURING 
              AND IN RELATION TO A CRIME OF VIOLENCE OR DRUG 
              TRAFFICKING CRIME.

    Section 924(c)(1)(A) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in clause (i), by striking ``5'' and inserting ``10'';
            (2) in clause (ii), by striking ``7'' and inserting ``15''; 
        and
            (3) in clause (iii), by striking ``10'' and inserting 
        ``20''.
                                 <all>
```
ACCEPTED

12-15-00076-CR

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS

6/17/2015 3:03:57 PM

CATHY LUSK

CLERK

 FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 6/17/2015 3:03:57 PM CATHY S. LUSK Clerk
#### § 792.41 When does this subpart apply?

This subpart applies if you want to obtain nonpublic records or testimony of an NCUA employee for legal proceedings. It doesn't apply to the release of records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, or the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, or the release of records to federal or state investigatory agencies under § 792.32.

[62 FR 56054, Oct. 29, 1997, as amended at 65 FR 63789, Oct. 25, 2000]
#### § 110.1 Applicability.

This part governs all operations conducted under subchapter G of this chapter.