alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

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

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LAURA REYES-ORTIZ,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-71652

Agency No. A073-993-010

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 15, 2011** 

Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Laura Reyes-Ortiz, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of

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

immigration judge’s decision denying her motion to reopen deportation

FILED

MAR 10 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-71652

proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 

We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Lara-Torres v.

Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir. 2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.

2005). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Reyes-Ortiz’s motion to

reopen based on lack of notice where the record establishes that she was personally

served with an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) and Notice of Hearing, written in

both English and Spanish. There was no statutory requirement that the OSC be

orally translated. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(2), (3) (1995); see also Matter of

Hernandez, 21 I. & N. Dec. 224, 226-27 (BIA 1996). 

Reyes-Ortiz’s remaining contentions are unavailing.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
*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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-51058

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PABLO AGUILAR,

Defendant-Appellant.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-98-CR-788-ALL

 

May 19, 1999

Before GARWOOD, JOLLY and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Pablo Aguilar appeals his sentence following his guilty-plea

conviction for impersonating an immigration officer, in violation

of 18 U.S.C. § 912. Aguilar contends that the district court

failed to give acceptable reasons justifying its upward departure

and that the departure was unreasonable. The decision to depart
2

from the Sentencing Guidelines is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

United States v. McKenzie, 991 F.2d 203, 204 (5th Cir. 1993). An

upward departure will be affirmed if the district court offers

acceptable reasons for the departure and the departure is

reasonable. United States v. Lambert, 984 F.2d 658, 663 (5th Cir.

1993) (en banc).

The district court adequately articulated its reasons for the

upward departure by discussing Aguilar’s prior criminal activities

and its opinion that the applicable guideline range did not

adequately reflect the seriousness and extent of his past crimes

and did not address his recidivist tendencies. United States v.

Ashburn, 38 F.3d 803, 809 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc); United States

v. Chappell, 6 F.3d 1095, 1102 (5th Cir. 1993); United States v.

Laury, 985 F.2d 1293, 1310 (5th Cir. 1993). The district court

departed upward on this basis from the 18 to 24 month guideline to

the 36 month statutory maximum, indicating along the way that it

felt 40 months would be appropriate. Although the district court

did not expressly examine each intervening guideline category, its

detailed explanation of why it felt a 12 month upward departure was

called for on the foregoing bases makes it evident why it rejected

the three possible lower levels of upward departure (3 months each)

calculated on such a basis. Under the circumstances, this was

adequate. McKenzie at 205. As we said in Ashburn:

“The district court did not expressly examine each

intervening criminal history category. However, we do

not require the district court to go through such a

‘ritualistic exercise’ where, as here, it is evident from

the stated grounds for departure why the bypassed

criminal history categories were inadequate.” Id. at
3

809.

With respect to the reasonableness of the departure, the

district court has wide discretion in determining the extent of the

departure. United States v. Moore, 997 F.2d 30, 37 (5th Cir.

1993). We have reviewed the record and the briefs on appeal and

find that the upward departure was not unreasonable. Aguilar’s

sentence is

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 23.1

                               SODAK GAMING, INC.



                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT





The Board of Directors
Sodak Gaming, Inc.:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement No.
33-92524 on Form S-8 of Sodak Gaming, Inc. of our reports dated February 16,
1998, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Sodak Gaming, Inc. and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997 and 1996, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, shareholders' equity and cash flows for each of the
years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1997, and the related
financial statement schedule, which reports are included in the 1997 annual
report on Form 10-K of Sodak Gaming, Inc. Our report refers to a change in
accounting for pre-opening and start-up costs in 1997.



                            \s\ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP



Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 30, 1998
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1


                        Annual Statement as to Compliance

                                NationsBank, N.A.

                            Barnett Auto Trust 1997-A
                            -------------------------

     This  Officer's Certificate is executed  pursuant to the Sale and Servicing
Agreement  dated as of September 1, 1997 (the "Agreement"), between Barnett Auto
Trust  1997-A,  as  Issuer,  and  Barnett  Dealer  Financial  Services, Inc., as
Sponsor  and  Servicer.  Barnett Dealer Financial Services, Inc. was merged into
NationsBank,  N.A.  and  NationsBank,  N.A. assumed the obligations of Servicer.
The  undersigned,  a duly authorized representative of the Servicer, does hereby
certify  that:


1.     Capitalized  terms  used  in  this  Officer's  Certificate  have  their
       respective  meanings  set  forth  in  the  Agreement.

2.     NationsBank,  N.A.  is  as  of  the  date  hereof  the Servicer under the
       Agreement.

3.     The  undersigned  is duly authorized pursuant to the Agreement to execute
       and  deliver  this  Officer's  Certificate  to  the  Trustee.

4.     The  certificate  is delivered pursuant to Section 4.10 of the Agreement.

5.     A review of the activities of the Servicer during the calendar year ended
       December  31, 1998, and of its performance under the Agreement was made 
       under my supervision.

6.     Based on such review, to the best of my knowledge, the Servicer has fully
       performed all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such 
       calendar year, and no event which, with the giving of notice or passage 
       of time or both, would constitute a default by the Servicer has occurred
       or is continuing.


IN  WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of the Servicer,
has  duly  executed  this  Officer's  Certificate this  31st day of March, 1999.



                              By:  /s/  SUZANNE  CASTLEBERRY
                                        --------------------
                              Suzanne  Castleberry
                              Vice  President


<PAGE>
#### § 203.5 Compliance as condition on operations in air transportation.

It shall be a condition on the authority of all direct U.S. and foreign carriers to operate in air transportation that they have and maintain in effect and on file with the Department a signed counterpart of Agreement 18900, and a tariff (for those carriers otherwise generally required to file tariffs) that includes its provisions, as required by this subpart. Notwithstanding any failure to file that counterpart and such tariff, any such air carrier or foreign air carrier issued license authority (including exemptions) by the Department or operating in air transportation shall be deemed to have agreed to the provisions of Agreement 18900 as fully as if that air carrier or foreign air carrier had in fact filed a properly executed counterpart to that Agreement and tariff.

[ER-1324, 48 FR 8044, Feb. 25, 1983, as amended by Doc. No. 47939, 57 FR 40100, Sept. 2, 1992]
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3789 

To make a clarifying amendment to the CARES Act. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 20, 2020 

Mr. CASSIDY (for himself and Mrs. HYDE-SMITH) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Appropriations 

A BILL 

To make a clarifying amendment to the CARES Act. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CLARIFYING AMENDMENT TO THE CARES ACT. 

4 Section 5001(b) of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and 

5 Economic Security Act (Public Law 116–136) is amended 

6 by striking ‘‘for fiscal year 2020 under section 601(a)(1)’’ 

7 and inserting ‘‘under title VI’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:December 3, 2015									

Christopher E. Friday
Tunergy, LLC
10200 Acworth Dr. 
Glen Allen VA, 23060
§ 141.53 Approval procedures for a training course: General. ( a ) *General.* An applicant for a pilot school certificate or provisional pilot school certificate must obtain the Administrator's approval of the outline of each training course for which certification and rating is sought.
( b ) *Application.* ( 1 ) An application for the approval of an initial or amended training course must be submitted in duplicate to the responsible Flight Standards office for the area where the school is based.
( 2 ) An application for the approval of an initial or amended training course must be submitted at least 30 days before any training under that course, or any amendment thereto, is scheduled to begin.
( 3 ) An application for amending a training course must be accompanied by two copies of the amendment.
( c ) *Training courses.* An applicant for a pilot school certificate or provisional pilot school certificate may request approval for the training courses specified under § 141.11(b).
( d ) *Additional rules for internet based training courses.* An application for an initial or amended training course offered through an internet based medium must comply with the following: ( 1 ) All amendments must be identified numerically by page, date, and screen. Minor editorial and typographical changes do not require FAA approval, provided the school notifies the FAA within 30 days of their insertion.
( 2 ) For monitoring purposes, the school must provide the FAA an acceptable means to log-in and log-off from a remote location to review all elements of the course as viewed by attendees and to by-pass the normal attendee restrictions.
( 3 ) The school must incorporate adequate security measures into its internet-based courseware information system and into its operating and maintenance procedures to ensure the following fundamental areas of security and protection: ( i ) Integrity.
( ii ) Identification/Authentication.
( iii ) Confidentiality.
( iv ) Availability.
( v ) Access control.
[Doc. No. 25910, 62 FR 16347, Apr. 4, 1997; Amdt. 141-9, 62 FR 40908, July 30, 1997; Amdt. 141-12, 74 FR 42563, Aug. 21, 2009; Amdt. 141-15, 76 FR 54107, Aug. 31, 2011, as amended by Docket FAA-2018-0119, Amdt. 141-19, 83 FR 9175, Mar. 5, 2018]
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

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

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without **

oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

LS/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JAMES F. GEORGE, III; et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

 and

MARGIE R. GEORGE,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

CITY OF MORRO BAY; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 08-55961

D.C. No. 2:07-cv-06302-R-JC

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 17, 2009** 

FILED

DEC 14 2009

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
LS/Research 2

Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

Margie R. George appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing

her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral

estoppel. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. 

Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002) (res judicata);

McQuillion v. Schwarzenegger, 369 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2004) (collateral

estoppel). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed George’s claims as barred by the

doctrine of res judicata because George could have raised them in her prior

bankruptcy proceedings. See Stewart, 297 F.3d at 956 (“Res judicata, or claim

preclusion, prohibits lawsuits on any claims that were raised or could have been

raised in a prior action.”) (internal citation, quotation marks, and italics omitted).

The district court also properly dismissed George’s takings claims as barred by the

doctrine of collateral estoppel because they are foreclosed by issues George

litigated in her prior bankruptcy proceedings. See McQuillion, 369 F.3d at 1096

(applying collateral estoppel where issues at stake were actually litigated by the

party against whom preclusion is asserted and were necessary to the earlier

judgment). 

George’s remaining contentions are unavailing.
LS/Research 3

Because appellees’ request for sanctions for a frivolous appeal was not

separately filed, we deny the request without prejudice to refiling a timely separate

motion. See Fed. R. App. P. 38; 9th Cir. R. 39-1.6; Higgins v. Vortex Fishing Sys.,

Inc., 379 F.3d 701, 709 (9th Cir. 2004) (denying without prejudice a Rule 38

request made in an appellate brief rather than in a separately filed motion). 

AFFIRMED.
1 

### Hutson, Nick

From: Frey, Nathan J. <Nathan_J._Frey@omb.eop.gov> Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2015 11:52 AM To: Culligan, Kevin; Harvey, Reid; Hutson, Nick; Vasu, Amy Cc: Szabo, Aaron; Grossman, Andrea Subject: Summary of Interagency Comments Under EO 12866 and 13563 -- Clean Power Plan Draft Final rule Attachments: SummaryofinteragencycommentsunderEO12866_13563_EO 1 2866_CPP 2060 AR33 Final_ 2015_8_1.docx



### Attached for your consideration please find a summa ry of interagency comments under EO 12866 and 13563 on the EPA draft final Clean Power Plan rule as well as one mi nor comment on the 111(b) preamble.

Thanks very much and please let me know if you have any questions.

Nathan
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 84 (Monday, May 1, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25310-25311]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-10806]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-201-802]


Gray Portland Cement and Clinker: Notice of Extension of Time 
Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of extension of time limit for preliminary results of 
antidumping duty administrative review.

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 1, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Callen or Robin Gray, AD/CVD 
Enforcement, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0180 and (202) 482-4023 
respectively.

[[Page 25311]]

The Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are 
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective 
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, 
all citations to the Department of Commerce's (the Department's) 
regulations are to 19 C.F.R. Part 351 (1998).

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) received a request to 
conduct an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on Gray 
Portland Cement and Clinker from Mexico. On October 1, 1999, the 
Department initiated this administrative review covering the period 
August 1, 1998, through August 31, 1999.
    Because of the complexity and timing of certain issues in this 
case, it is not practicable to complete this review within the time 
limit mandated by section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. Following initiation 
of the administrative review, we received an allegation of sales below 
cost. We have completed our analysis of the cost allegation and are in 
the process of conducting a cost investigation. However, since we did 
not receive the allegation of sales below cost until more than three 
months after initiation of the administrative review, we are unable to 
complete our analysis before the current deadline. Therefore, the 
Department is extending the time limit for the preliminary results to 
August 30, 2000. The Department intends to issue the final results of 
review 120 days after the publication of the preliminary results. This 
extension of the time limit is in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) 
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2).

    Dated: April 19, 2000.
Richard Moreland,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-10806 Filed 4-28-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
**Exhibit 21.1**

 

**SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT**

 

**As of December 31, 2007**

 

Gainesville Bank & Trust, a Georgiabanking corporation

 

United Bank & Trust, a Georgia bankingcorporation

 

Community Trust Bank, a Georgia bankingcorporation

 

HomeTown Bank of Villa Rica, a Georgiabanking corporation

 

GB&T Bancshares, Inc.Statutory Trust I, aConnecticut trust

 

First National Bank of the South, anational banking corporation

 

GB&T Bancshares, Inc.Statutory Trust II, aConnecticut trust

 

Southern HeritageBancorp, Inc. StatutoryTrust I, a Connecticut trust

 

First National Bank of Gwinnett, anational banking corporation

 

Mountain State Bank, a Georgia bankingcorporation

 

----
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 10209 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JUSTIN NEIL PATTERSON , also known as Raver,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:05

- CR

- 195

Before WIENER, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
Justin Neil Patterson appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce the 235

- month sentence imposed on his guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute more than 50 grams of pure methamphetamine under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). Patterson contends that he was entitled to a two

- level

* 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 April 26, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-10209 Document: 00513481293 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/26/2016No. 15

- 10209

2 reduction in his offense level based on Amendment 782 to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 and
that the district court denied his motion without reason.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), a sentence may be modified if the defendant’s term of imprisonment was based on a sentencing range later lowered by the Sentencing Commiss ion and made retroactively available. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a) ; Dillon v. United States , 560 U.S. 817, 82 5

– 2 6 (2010). When considering a § 3582(c)(2) motion, the district court is to conduct a two

step analysis. Dillon , 560 U.S. at 826. The court must first de termine whether the defendant is eligible for a reduction under § 1B1.10. Id

. at 827. If he is, the
district court must then “consider any applicable § 3553(a) factors and determine whether, in its discretion,” a reduction is warranted under the facts of t he case. Id

. This court reviews a district court’s sentence reduction
determination under § 3582(c)(2 ) for abuse of discretion, its interpretation of the Guidelines de novo, and its fi ndings of fact for clear error. United States v.
Henderson , 636 F.3d 713 , 717 (5th Cir. 2011)

. In Patterson’s case , our analysis ends with the first step. Contrary to his
contention , the district court’s order addresse d his eligibility for a sentence reduction, correctly holding that he was not eligible

. Amendment 782 provide s a base offense level of 38 for a defendant convicted of an offense involving 4.5 kilograms of “I ce ” methamphetamine

— the same level applied to Patterson. Compare U.S.S.G., APP. C., AMEND. 782, with § 2D1.1(c)(1) (2005) . Thus, the
district court was without authority to “ modify [the] term of imprisonment . . . imposed” on Patterson. Dillon , 560 U.S. at 8 19 . Because Patterson fails the first part of the Dillon analysis, additional discussion is unnecessary. Id . at
826. AFFIRMED. Case: 15-10209 Document: 00513481293 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/26/2016
#### § 1212.706 Assistant Administrator for Procurement.

The Assistant Administrator for Procurement is responsible for developing appropriate procurement regulations and procedures under which NASA contracts requiring the maintenance of a system of records in order to accomplish a NASA function are made subject to the requirements of this part.

[57 FR 4928, Feb. 11, 1992. Redesignated at 77 FR 60622, Oct. 4, 2012]