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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

JUN FU LI,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-71126

Agency No. A079-543-613

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 5, 2011** 

Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

Jun Fu Li, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of

Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration

judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and

relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under

FILED

APR 21 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-71126

8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings, Farah v.

Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003), and for abuse of discretion the

BIA’s denial of a motion to remand, de Jesus Melendez v. Gonzales, 503 F.3d

1019, 1023 (9th Cir. 2007). We deny the petition for review. 

The forensic expert’s testimony and report provide substantial evidence to

support the agency’s finding that Li submitted a possibly fraudulent sterilization

certificate and fine receipt. See Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741, 745 (9th Cir.

2004). Accordingly, Li’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See id.

Li did not advance an argument in support of his CAT claim in his opening

brief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues

not supported by argument are deemed waived).

Li contends the record does not support the BIA’s refusal to consider new

evidence he submitted on appeal to the BIA, and its implicit denial of his request

for remand. To the extent the BIA construed Li’s submission of new evidence as a

motion to remand, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion

because the new evidence did not show that Li’s wife was forcibly sterilized. See

Rodriguez v. INS, 841 F.2d 865, 867 (9th Cir. 1988) (requirements for a motion to

remand are the same as for a motion to reopen); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d
3 08-71126

983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) (BIA may deny a motion to reopen for failure to establish

a prima facie case).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### Sec. 2-5 Revenue and accounting practices.

(a) Revenue accounting practices shall conform to the provisions of account 2160, Air Traffic Liability.

(b) Each route air carrier shall physically verify the reliability of its passenger revenue accounting practice at least once each accounting year.

(c) For those carriers who use the yield or average-fare method to determine earned revenue, the analysis supporting the verification shall include:

(1) The cutoff date for the liability to be verified; such cutoff date shall be at the end of a calendar month.

(2) The number of months after the cutoff date during which documents were examined to verify the liability; the number of months after the cutoff date during which documents are examined shall not exceed the maximums set forth below:

| Class of carrier | Maximum months1 |
| --- | --- |
| TWA | 18 |
| Trunks (except TWA) | 12 |
| All other route air carriers | 6 |
| | |
| --- | --- |
| 1 Applies only to carriers on a yield or average-fare basis. | |

(3) The nature of the documents which were examined for purposes of the verification.

(4) The totals for each of the various types of documents examined, on actual or sampling basis.

(5) A description of the sampling technique and conversion to totals, if sampling was employed.

(6) The amount and basis for all estimates employed in the verification.

(7) The amount of resulting adjustments and the quarter in which such adjustments were, or are to be, made in the accounts.

(d) For those carriers who use the sales-lift match method to determine earned revenue, the analysis supporting the physical inventory verification shall include:

(1) The cutoff date for the liability to be verified; such cutoff date shall be at the end of a calendar month.

(2) A trial balance as of the cutoff date of all subaccounts supporting the Air Traffic Liability control account; the subsidiary trial balance must agree with the Air Traffic Liability control account or a reconciliation statement furnished.

(3) A statement to the effect that a sales listing of the value of all unmatched auditor coupons has been compiled and compared to the general ledger control figure; the statement required by this subparagraph shall indicate whether or not the value of the unmatched coupons is in agreement with the general ledger. If the sales listing is not in agreement with the Air Traffic Liability control account, the amount of such difference shall be shown on such statement.

[ER-948, [41 FR 12290](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/41-FR-12290), Mar. 25, 1976, as amended by ER-1401, [50 FR 238](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/50-FR-238), Jan. 3, 1985. Redesignated at Amdt. 241-58, [54 FR 5592](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/54-FR-5592), Feb. 6, 1989; [60 FR 66725](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/60-FR-66725), Dec. 26, 1995]
#### § 17.1 Applicability.

This part applies to all Acquisition Management System (AMS) bid protests and contract disputes involving the FAA that are filed at the Office of Dispute Resolution for Acquisition (ODRA) on or after October 7, 2011, with the exception of those contract disputes arising under or related to FAA contracts entered into prior to April 1, 1996, where such contracts have not been modified to be made subject to the FAA AMS. This part also applies to pre-disputes as described in subpart G of this part.
#### Willie Jasper DARDEN, Petitioner-Appellant, Cross-Respondent, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Secretary, Department of Corrections, State of Florida, Respondent-Appellee, Cross-Petitioner.

No. 81-5590.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Oct. 15, 1986.

Robert Augustus Harper, Jr., John Perry, Tallahassee, Fla., for Darden.

Geoffrey M. Kalmus, New York City, Amicus, NAACP Legal Defense and Educ. Fund, Inc.

Richard W. Prospect, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, Fla., for Wainwright.

Before GODBOLD, TJOFLAT, HILL, FAY, VANCE, KRAVITCH, JOHNSON, ANDERSON, CLARK and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.*

*

 Chief Judge Paul H. Roney did not participate in this decision. Circuit Judge Joseph W. Hatchett, having recused himself, did not participate in this decision. Circuit Judge J.L. Edmondson did not participate in previous proceedings but did participate in this decision. Senior Circuit Judge Lewis R. Morgan elected not to participate in this decision pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 46(c). Senior Circuit Judge Albert J. Henderson participated in the previous en banc consideration of this case, but since that time has taken senior status.

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PER CURIAM:

The judgment of this court as published in 767 F.2d 752 (11th Cir.1985), was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States and remanded to this court for further proceedings in conformity with the opinion of the Supreme Court, --- U.S. ---, 106 S.Ct. 2464, 91 L.Ed.2d 144.

Accordingly, the judgment of the Supreme Court is made the judgment of this court and the judgment of the district court denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus is

AFFIRMED.1

1

. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
§ 121.127 Flight following system; requirements. ( a ) Each certificate holder conducting supplemental operations using a flight following system must show that— ( 1 ) The system has adequate facilities and personnel to provide the information necessary for the initiation and safe conduct of each flight to— ( i ) The flight crew of each aircraft; and
( ii ) The persons designated by the certificate holder to perform the function of operational control of the aircraft; and
( 2 ) The system has a means of communication by private or available public facilities (such as telephone, telegraph, or radio) to monitor the progress of each flight with respect to its departure at the point of origin and arrival at its destination, including intermediate stops and diversions therefrom, and maintenance or mechanical delays encountered at those points or stops.
( b ) The certificate holder conducting supplemental operations must show that the personnel specified in paragraph (a) of this section, and those it designates to perform the function of operational control of the aircraft, are able to perform their required duties.
[Doc. No. 6258, 29 FR 19195, Dec. 31, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 121-253, 61 FR 2611, Jan. 26, 1996]
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 05135**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  05135\05135_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 05135\05135_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file x 05135\05135_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file x 05135\05135_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

05135\Certification Statement Plant ID 05135.pdf Plant certification statement 05135\Supplemental Documents\05135_FEC Map-1.jpg Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 05135\Supplemental Documents\05135_FEC Map-2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 05135\Supplemental Documents\05135_FEC WB-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 05135\05135_Checklist.XLS EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

05135\05135_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 05135\Supplemental Documents\05135_ICR CoverLetter.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
§ 1259.202 Application procedures. ( a ) The opportunity to apply shall be announced by the Director, NASA Space Grant Program.
( b ) The application procedures and evaluation guidelines for awards under this section will be included in the announcements of such programs.
( c ) The applications will be reviewed by a peer review merit selection panel appointed by the Director, NASA Space Grant Program.
[54 FR 19880, May 9, 1989, as amended at 82 FR 35441, July 31, 2017]
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3699-4 Filed:07/25/18 Entered:07/25/18 17:40:18 Desc:Exhibit Promesa Cover Sheet Page 1 of 2Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3699-4 Filed:07/25/18 Entered:07/25/18 17:40:18 Desc:Exhibit Promesa Cover Sheet Page 2 of 2
# C_2017378EN.01000101.xml

| 9.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/1

---

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

2013-2014 SESSION

Sitting of 10 March 2014

The Minutes of this session have been published in OJ C 85, 12.3.2015.

The Minutes of this session have been published in OJ C 85, 12.3.2015.

2014-2015 SESSION

Sittings of 11 to 13 March 2014

The Minutes of this session have been published in OJ C 85, 12.3.2015.

The Minutes of this session have been published in OJ C 85, 12.3.2015.

TEXTS ADOPTED

---
#### § 137.59 Inspection authority.

Each holder of an agricultural aircraft operator certificate shall allow the Administrator at any time and place to make inspections, including on-the-job inspections, to determine compliance with applicable regulations and his agricultural aircraft operator certificate.
Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION III

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029

April 9, 2013

The Honorable Robert M. Summers, Secretary

Maryland Department of the Environment

1800 Washington Boulevard

Baltimore, MD 21230

Dear Secretary Summers:

On January 10, 2013, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received a 

revision to the State of Maryland State Implementation Plan (SIP) from the Maryland 

Department of the Environment (MDE). The SIP revision submittal includes new 

Regulation .27-1 under the Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) 26.11.19 – Volatile 

Organic Compounds from Specific Processes in order to adopt the recommended level of control 

requirements of EPA’s Control Technique Guideline (CTG) for miscellaneous metal and plastic 

parts which include controls for pleasure craft coating operations. EPA has determined that the 

submittal is administratively and technically complete, and is reviewing it to prepare a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPR). 

If members of your staff have any questions, they may direct them to Mr. Gregory Becoat, 

at (215) 814-2036, the principal contact for this rulemaking. 

Sincerely, 

 /s/

 Diana Esher, Director

Air Protection Division

 

cc: George (Tad) Aburn, Jr., Director, Air and Radiation Management Administration

 Diane Franks, Program Manager, Air Quality Planning
P.1 

OAR Box 1830 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

51) IV-C-17 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 11/13/2008 7:20:53 AM Sheet 51 of 232 
P.2 

(5RA-14) 

|7 ^ W88 

Honorable Robert W. Davis 

House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Mr. Davis: 

Thank you for your December 17, 1987, letter concerning the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA) August 19, 1987, regulatory proposal 

(see 52 FR 31162) to require onboard canisters on new vehicles to control 

refueling emissions. Section E of this proposal (pages 31177-31182) 

explains USEPA's overall rationale for proposing onboard controls. For 

your convenience I am enclosing a copy of these pages. I am also enclosing 

a fact sheet on the control of gasoline vapors which addresses the issues 

of concern to your constituent. 

Please be assured that the comments provided by your constituent will be 

considered as USEPA prepares its Final Rule. Vie will also he plating a 

copy of the conments in the public docket for the Rule (Docket No. A-37-11), 

If you would like further information regarding USEPA's analysis of the 

control of gasoline vapors, please contact Mr. Philip Carlson of USEPA's 

Standards Development and Support Branch, Emission Control Technology 

Division, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105. His telephone 

number is (313) 668-4270. 

If I can be of any further assistance, please let me know. 

Sincerely yours, 

/s/ Original signed by 

VALDAS V. ADAMKUS 

Valdas V. Adamkus 

Regional Administrator 

Enclosures 

bcc: ORA W/Control Slip S. Mitchell 

At W/Control Slip and Incoming J . Bortzer 

M. Canavan ORAC-267 

K. "estlake A. Lill y 

P. Carlson./ N. Wiggins 
P.3 

EW/K^S-SoY 

irNm^OTECT>OH 

o 5 \9$
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a)**

**OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Michael Vernon, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of aQuantive, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have: 

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; 

 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

5.The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent function): 

 

a) Allsignificant deficiencies or material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and 

 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: November 11, 2004
§ 25.1431 Electronic equipment. ( a ) In showing compliance with § 25.1309 (a) and (b) with respect to radio and electronic equipment and their installations, critical environmental conditions must be considered.
( b ) Radio and electronic equipment must be supplied with power under the requirements of § 25.1355(c).
( c ) Radio and electronic equipment, controls, and wiring must be installed so that operation of any one unit or system of units will not adversely affect the simultaneous operation of any other radio or electronic unit, or system of units, required by this chapter.
( d ) Electronic equipment must be designed and installed such that it does not cause essential loads to become inoperative as a result of electrical power supply transients or transients from other causes.
[Doc. No. 5066, 29 FR 18291, Dec. 24, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 25-113, 69 FR 12530, Mar. 16, 2004]
Contact: PJM News, toll free at 866-PJM-NEWS (866-756-6397)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC., AND DUKE ENERGY KENTUCKY, INC., 

SUCCESSFULLY INTEGRATED INTO PJM

Regional Operations Strengthen Reliability, Coordination and Competition

(Valley Forge, Pa. – Jan. 3, 2012) – At midnight Eastern Time, Jan. 1, PJM Interconnection

successfully assumed operational control of the transmission systems of Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. 

and Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc., both subsidiaries of Duke Energy Corporation, and began 

administering open, competitive wholesale electricity markets in those areas. 

With the integrations, PJM’s all-time peak demand would have been 163,848 megawatts (MW). PJM 

now includes 185,600 MW of generating capacity and more than 62,000 miles of transmission lines. 

The generators in PJM can produce more electricity than Canada and Mexico combined.

Statistics for PJM with the addition of Duke Energy Ohio and Kentucky are in the table below.

Key Statistics

PJM

1993

(PJM Interconnection 

Association formed)

PJM

as of May 31, 

2011

PJM

with ATSI & 

CPP

PJM

with Duke 

OH & KY

Millions of people served 22 54 58 60.1

All-time peak demand 46,429 144,644 158,448 163,848

Generating capacity in megawatts 55,575 167,362 180,400 185,600

Miles of transmission lines 6,821 56,750 61,200 62,591

Square miles of territory 48,700 168,500 211,000 214,000

– MORE –

NEWS

RELEASE
Page 2 of 2 / DUKE OHIO AND KENTUCKY SUCCESSFULLY INTEGRATED INTO PJM

PJM Interconnection, founded in 1927, ensures the reliability of the high-voltage electric power system serving 

60 million people in all or parts of Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, 

North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of Columbia. PJM 

coordinates and directs the operation of the region’s transmission grid, which includes 62,000 miles of 

transmission lines; administers a competitive wholesale electricity market; and plans regional transmission 

expansion improvements to maintain grid reliability and relieve congestion. Visit PJM at www.pjm.com.

###
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4151 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to allow payments under 

the Medicare program for certain items and services furnished by offcampus outpatient departments of a provider to be determined under 

the prospective payment system for hospital outpatient department services, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 2, 2020 

Mr. HOEVEN (for himself and Mr. JONES) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to allow 

payments under the Medicare program for certain items 

and services furnished by off-campus outpatient departments of a provider to be determined under the prospective payment system for hospital outpatient department 

services, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘SOS: Sustaining Out5 patient Services Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4151 IS

1 SEC. 2. ALLOWING MEDICARE PAYMENTS FOR CERTAIN 

2 ITEMS AND SERVICES FURNISHED BY OFF3 CAMPUS OUTPATIENT DEPARTMENTS OF A 

4 PROVIDER TO BE DETERMINED UNDER THE 

5 PROSPECTIVE PAYMENT SYSTEM FOR HOS6 PITAL OUTPATIENT DEPARTMENT SERVICES. 

7 Section 1833(t)(1)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 

8 U.S.C. 1395l(t)(1)(B)) is amended— 

9 (1) in clause (iv), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end; 

10 (2) in clause (v)— 

11 (A) by inserting before ‘‘does not include’’ 

12 the following: ‘‘subject to clause (vi),’’; and 

13 (B) by striking the period at the end and 

14 inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

15 (3) by adding at the end the following new 

16 clause: 

17 ‘‘(vi) includes, with respect to a year 

18 (beginning with 2021), any item or serv19 ice— 

20 ‘‘(I) that is furnished during 

21 such year by an off-campus outpatient 

22 department of a provider (as defined 

23 in subparagraph (B) of paragraph 

24 (21)); and 

25 ‘‘(II) with respect to which the 

26 greatest total amount paid with reVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:58 Jul 12, 2020 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S4151.IS S4151

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4151 IS

1 spect to a physician speciality under 

2 the physician fee schedule under sec3 tion 1848 for all such items or serv4 ices furnished by physicians in such 

5 specialty during the previous year was 

6 less than $2,000,000.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
### Record of Discussion



# ~01~ - ( 

# f 

# - oo:L 

# -40 Docket No . FAA- 

### Directorate Identifier: -lrl)



### With whom outside the FAA has this AD action been discussed (i.e. , Design Approval Holder, manufacturer, ATA, NBAA, RAA, AOPA, ALPA, GAMA, etc)?

ORGA N IZATION PERSON CONTACT E D DAT E TOPICS DISCUSSED Piper Ken Fraley Mu lt ipl e dates Effectivit y . co s ts for co mpli ance , hi s tory of Piper Service Bulletins an d FAA test requi re m e nts .



### Other/ Additional Informati on:



### 10