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). *** The Honorable William E. Smith, District Judge for the U.S. District Court the District of Rhode Island, sitting by designation. NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BURMAA CHOGSOM, Petitioner,
v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. No. 08-71756 Agency No. A098-256-197
MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 9, 2012 ** San Francisco, California Before: KLEINFELD and BERZON, Circuit Judges, and SMITH, District Judge. *** 

# FILED
NOV 30 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 Petitioner Burma Chogsom petitions for review of a BIA decision denying her applications for asylum, withhol ding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We reject her arguments and deny her petition for review.
We review factual findings underlying the BIA’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief unde r the Convention Against Torture for substantial evidence. Ahmed v. Keisler , 504 F.3d 1183, 1191 (9th Cir. 2007). Chogsom claims that she was persecuted in Mongolia because of her membership in the Mongolian Democratic Party a nd because she was a descendent of Mongolian nobility. However, reviewing th e record as a whole, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Chogsom’s political opinions and social group were not a central reason for any mistreatment she may have suffered. Parussimova v. Mukasey , 555 F.3d 734, 741 (9th Cir. 2009). Since Chogsom cannot meet her burden of proof for asylum, she necessarily cannot qualify for withholding of removal. Kumar v. Gonzales , 439 F.3d 520, 525 (9th Cir. 2006).
Chogsom claims she is entitled to relief under the Convention Against Torture because she suffered torture when her ex-husband’s ex-wife attacked and3 harassed her. However, the record show s that the police protected Chogsom from the alleged attacks on multiple occasions, and Chogsom has no evidence to show that the government in any way participated in her mistreatment. Therefore, even if Chogsom’s mistreatment constituted torture, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that the mistreatment was not done “with the consent or acquiescence of a public offici al.” Abufayad v. Holder , 632 F.3d 623, 632 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(2)).
Finally, Chogsom argues that she was denied due process in her proceeding before the IJ because she received inadequa te translation. We cannot consider this claim because Chogsom failed to exhaust it in her appeal to the BIA. Meihua Huang v. Mukasey , 520 F.3d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam).

PETITION DENIED.
# L_2015189EN.01004101.xml

| 17.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 189/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 189/41

---

Corrigendum to Commission Directive 98/15/EC of 27 February 1998 amending Council Directive 91/271/EEC with respect to certain requirements established in Annex I thereof

(
  Official Journal of the European Communities L 67 of 7 March 1998
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Communities L 67 of 7 March 1998

On page 30, Annex, Table 2, in the title:

for:

‘Requirements for discharges from urban waste water treatment plants to sensitive areas which are subject to cutrophication as identified in Anex II.A(a).’,

read:

‘Requirements for discharges from urban waste water treatment plants to sensitive areas which are subject to eutrophication as identified in Annex II.A(a).’

---
#### WALTON v. CITY OF TUSCALOOSA.

(Decided November 25, 1915.)

Appeal from Tuscaloosa County Court.

Heard before Hon. H. B. Foster.

No counsel marked for appellant. BROWN & Ward, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Agriculture

###### Natural Resources Conservation Service 

# AGENCY:

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 

# ACTION:

Notice of availability of proposed changes in Section IV of the FOTG of the NRCS in Indiana for review and comment. 

# SUMMARY:

It is the intention of NRCS in Indiana to issue two revised conservation practice standards in Section IV of the FOTG. The revised standards are Field Border (Code 386) and Use Exclusion (Code 472). These practices may be used in conservation systems that treat highly erodible land.

# DATES:

Comments will be received on or before June 8, 2000. 

# ADDRESSES:

Address all requests and comments to Jane E. Hardisty, State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 6013 Lakeside Blvd., Indianapolis, Indiana 46278. Copies of these standards will be made available upon written or electronic request. You may submit electronic requests and comments to joe.gasperi@in.usda.gov. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jane E. Hardisty, 317-290-3200. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Section 343 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 states that revisions made after enactment of the law, to NRCS state technical guides used to carry out highly erodible land and wetland provisions of the law, shall be made available for public review and comment. For the next 30 days, the NRCS in Indiana will receive comments relative to the proposed changes. Following that period, a determination will be made by the NRCS in Indiana regarding disposition of those comments and a final determination of changes will be made. 

Dated: April 26, 2000. 

Jane E. Hardisty, 

State Conservationist, Indianapolis, Indiana. 

[FR Doc. 00-11572 Filed 5-8-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410-16-U
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2



                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Tower Financial Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kevin
J. Himmelhaver, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2)      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


/s/ Kevin J. Himmelhaver
-----------------------------------

Kevin J. Himmelhaver
Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
  and Secretary
May 14, 2003


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Tower Financial Corporation and will be retained by Tower Financial
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.


                                       23
# EUR-Lex - 31996Y0919(06) - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31996Y0919(06)

**Council Recommendation of 30 November 1994 concerning the adoption of a standard travel document for the expulsion of third-country nationals **

*
Official Journal C 274 , 19/09/1996 P. 0018 - 0019 *

ANNEX II.1

COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION of 30 November 1994 concerning the adoption of a standard travel document for the expulsion of third-country nationals

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article K.1 (3) (c) thereof,

Whereas combating unauthorized immigration, residence and work by nationals of third countries on the territory of Member States is regarded as a matter of common interest;

Noting that consultation and cooperation on the execution of expulsion measures is considered a priority action in the 1994 work programme;

Acknowledging that a recent seminar on expulsion measures showed that the great majority of Member States experience difficulties in cases of third-country nationals possessing no travel documents who are required to be expelled from their territory;

Desirous of improving the efficiency with which expulsion measures are executed,

HEREBY RECOMMENDS THAT:

- with effect from 1 January 1995 the attached standard travel document valid for a single journey shall be used as appropriate by all Member States in the case of third-country nationals being expelled from the territory of the Union,

- the document shall be established in the language of the Member State executing the expulsion order,

- the document, where appropriate, shall be translated into both French and English.

>REFERENCE TO A FILM>

>START OF GRAPHIC>

MEMBER STATE .

Reg. No:

Doc. No:

No d'enregistrement No doc.

Valid for one journey from: .

Valable pour un seul voyage de to: .

à Name: .

Nom Forename: .

Prénom Date of birth: .

Date de naissance Height: .

Taille Distinguishing marks: .

Signes particuliers Nationality: .

Nationalité PHOTO Photo Address in home country (if known): .

.

.

Adresse dans le pays d'origine (si connu) Seal/Stamp Sceau:Cachet Issuing authority: .

Autorité de délivrance Issued at: .

Lieu de délivrance Issued on: .

Date de délivrance Signature: .

Signature Remarks/Observations: .

.

.

>END OF GRAPHIC>
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-11-0000748

28-JUN-2013

08:43 AM
FEATHER RIVER AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 

IN RE: ) 

) RESOLUTION NO. 2005-15 

RESOLUTION ADOPTING ) 

REGULATION III RULE 3.20- WOOD ) 

PRODUCTS COATING OPERATIONS ) 

___________________________ ) 

WHEREAS, California Health and Safety Code sections 40000, 40001, 40702, 40716 and 40910 

authorize the Feather River Air Quality Management District to adopt these proposed rules and regulations; 

and 

WHEREAS, this Resolution, and the Regulation set forth herein, was adopted after proceedings held 

in accordance with provisions of chapters 6 and 6.5 of part 3 of division 26 of the California Health and 

Safety Code (commencing with section 40700), arret a duly noticed public hearing was held on August 30, 

2005 to consider adoption of Regulation III, Rule 3.20- Wood Products Coating Operations; and 

WHEREAS, District staff has prepared a written analysis of the proposed Regulation III, Rule 3 .20, 

Wood Products Coatings Operations, pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 40727.2, and has 

maintained a record of the rulemaking proceeding pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 40728; and 

WHEREAS, there is no indication at this time that Regulation Ill, Rule 3.20 is written in such a 

manner that the persons affected by it could not easily understand it; and 

WHEREAS, the proposed Regulation III, Rule 3.20 is in harmony with, and not in conflict with or 

contradictory to, existing statutes, court decisions, or State or federal regulations and any duplication with 

existing state or federal regulations is necessary or proper to execute the powers and duties of the Feather 

River Air Quality Management District; and 

WHEREAS, the proposed adoption of Regulation III, Rule 3.20 is not a project under the California 

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15378 because the action will 

not cause a direct adverse physical change to the environment or cause a reasonable foreseeable adverse 

physical change in the enviromnent and that no further action is required under CEQA; and 

WHEREAS, the proposed adoption of Regulation III, Rule 3.20 will fulfill one of the commitments 

made in the 2003 Northern Sacramento Valley Air Basin Attainment Plan for reduction of ozone precursors; 

and 

WHEREAS, the District Board has made the required findings of authority, necessity, clarity, 

consistency, non-duplication, and reference; 
AYES: Directors Griego, Schrader, Silva,Epp, Pendergraph, Ramirez and Harris 

NOES: None 

ABSENT: Directors Munger, Logue and Kitchen 

ABSTAIN: None 

ATTEST: 

CLERK OF THE DISTRICT BOARD 

APPROVED FOR LEGAL FORM 

' 

J1m . L ew1s, : D. 1stnct . L 1 Ad . ega VISOr 

Exhibit A 

District Regulation III Rule 3.20- Wood Products Coating Operations
#### John J. O’Neill, Respondent, *v.*Seglin Construction Company, Inc., et al., Appellants, and Henry Ciafardoni et al., Respondents.

Argued January 20, 1937;

decided March 9, 1937.

*550
      *William F. McNulty, Harold R. Medina*and *John W. Jordan*for Standard Accident Insurance Company, appellant.

*Harry J. Halperin*for Seglin Construction Company, Inc., appellant.

*Samuel Gottlieb, Francis T. Nolan, Edward M. Swinburne*and *James J. Dooling*for respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Loughran, Pinch and Rippey, JJ. Taking no part: Hubbs, J.
§ 25.445 Auxiliary aerodynamic surfaces. ( a ) When significant, the aerodynamic influence between auxiliary aerodynamic surfaces, such as outboard fins and winglets, and their supporting aerodynamic surfaces, must be taken into account for all loading conditions including pitch, roll, and yaw maneuvers, and gusts as specified in § 25.341(a) acting at any orientation at right angles to the flight path.
( b ) To provide for unsymmetrical loading when outboard fins extend above and below the horizontal surface, the critical vertical surface loading (load per unit area) determined under § 25.391 must also be applied as follows: ( 1 ) 100 percent to the area of the vertical surfaces above (or below) the horizontal surface.
( 2 ) 80 percent to the area below (or above) the horizontal surface.
[Doc. No. 5066, 29 FR 18291, Dec. 24, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 25-86, 61 FR 5222, Feb. 9, 1996]
§ 91.1075 Training program: Special rules. Other than the program manager, only the following are eligible under this subpart to conduct training, testing, and checking under contract or other arrangement to those persons subject to the requirements of this subpart. ( a ) Another program manager operating under this subpart:
( b ) A training center certificated under part 142 of this chapter to conduct training, testing, and checking required by this subpart if the training center— ( 1 ) Holds applicable training specifications issued under part 142 of this chapter;
( 2 ) Has facilities, training equipment, and courseware meeting the applicable requirements of part 142 of this chapter;
( 3 ) Has approved curriculums, curriculum segments, and portions of curriculum segments applicable for use in training courses required by this subpart; and
( 4 ) Has sufficient instructors and check pilots qualified under the applicable requirements of §§ 91.1089 through 91.1095 to conduct training, testing, and checking to persons subject to the requirements of this subpart.
( c ) A part 119 certificate holder operating under part 121 or part 135 of this chapter.
( d ) As authorized by the Administrator, a training center that is not certificated under part 142 of this chapter.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-1800

___________

Dexter Lee Nash, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

- Cobbs, Mrs., Parole Officer, East *

Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; Greg * [UNPUBLISHED]

Harmon, Warden, East Arkansas *

Regional Unit, ADC; Wheatly, Mrs., *

Assistant Warden, East Arkansas *

Regional Unit, ADC; Outlaw, *

Assistant Warden, East Arkansas *

Regional Unit, ADC; Winfrey, Mr., *

Parole Officer, East Arkansas Regional *

Unit, ADC, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: October 12, 2009

Filed: November 4, 2009

___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.
1

The Honorable Brian S. Miller, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable

Henry L. Jones, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of

Arkansas.

-2-

Dexter Lee Nash appeals the district court’s1

 dismissal without prejudice of his

42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Upon de novo review, see Cooper v. Schriro, 189 F.3d 781,

783 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam), we agree with the district court that dismissal was

proper because Nash failed to state a section 1983 claim. Accordingly, we affirm.

See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No. 333-59959, 333-73015) pertaining to the 1998 Equity Incentive
Plan, 1998 Employee Stock Purchase Plan and 1998 Non-Employee Directors Option
Plan of Actuate Corporation of our report dated January 12, 2000, with respect
to the consolidated financial statements of Actuate Corporation included in the
Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1999.


                                           /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Palo Alto, California
March 27, 2000
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. ER00-2416-000]

Take notice that on May 8, 2000, pursuant to Section 205 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. § 824d and 18 CFR Part 35, Entergy Services, Inc. (ESI), tendered for filing a three-month (June 1, 2000 through August 31, 2000) Transaction Agreement between Entergy Gulf States, Inc., (EGS), as seller, and ESI, as buyer, on behalf of those of the Entergy Operating Companies which have authority to enter into this Transaction Agreement (ESI and said Entergy Operating Companies collectively hereinafter referred to as “Entergy”).

Entergy requests waiver of the 60-day notice requirement of section 35.3 of FERC's regulations, 18 CFR 35.3, to allow the Transaction Agreement to become effective June 1, 2000.

Entergy has served a copy of this filing on its state and local regulatory commissions.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and protests should be filed on or before May 19, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-12217 Filed 5-15-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
§ 101.24 Final disposition of a charge which has been held pending investigation of the petition. ( a ) Upon the determination that the issuance of a direction of election is warranted on the petition, the Regional Director, absent withdrawal of the charge, dismisses it subject to an appeal to the General Counsel in Washington, DC.
( b ) If, however, the petition is dismissed or withdrawn, the investigation of the charge is resumed, and the appropriate steps described in § 101.22 are taken with respect to it.