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).

IH/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE LUIS MALDONADO-ESCOBAR,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 06-73539

Agency No. A074-418-634

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 15, 2009** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

Jose Luis Maldonado-Escobar, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s order denying his application for cancellation of removal. We

FILED

DEC 30 2009

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
IH/Research 2 06-73539

have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of

law, Sandoval-Lua v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 1121, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2007), and we

deny the petition for review. 

Maldonado-Escobar does not challenge the agency’s conclusion that his 

2002 conviction for possession of a controlled substance in violation of California

Health & Safety Code § 11377(a) rendered him inadmissible pursuant to 8 U.S.C.

§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II). As this conviction occurred before Maldonado-Escobar had

acquired seven years of continuous residence, we agree with the agency’s

conclusion that he is not statutorily eligible for cancellation of removal. See 8

U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(2), (d)(1). Because our conclusion is dispositive of MaldonadoEscobar’s eligibility for cancellation of removal, we do not consider his contention

regarding his 2001 conviction. 

We cannot consider the new evidence Maldonado-Escobar submitted with

his motion to remand as our review is limited to the administrative record. See 8

U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A). We therefore deny Maldonado-Escobar’s motion to

remand. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1); Altawil v. INS, 179 F.3d 791, 792-93 (9th Cir.

1999) (order). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
§ 1910.440 Recordkeeping requirements. ( a ) ( 1 ) [Reserved]
( 2 ) The employer shall record the occurrence of any diving-related injury or illness which requires any dive team member to be hospitalized for 24 hours or more, specifying the circumstances of the incident and the extent of any injuries or illnesses.
( b ) *Availability of records.* ( 1 ) Upon the request of the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, or the Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Department of Health and Human Services of their designees, the employer shall make available for inspection and copying any record or document required by this standard.
( 2 ) Records and documents required by this standard shall be provided upon request to employees, designated representatives, and the Assistant Secretary in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.1020 (a)-(e) and (g)-(i). Safe practices manuals (§ 1910.420), depth-time profiles (§ 1910.422), recordings of dives (§ 1910.423), decompression procedure assessment evaluations (§ 1910.423), and records of hospitalizations (§ 1910.440) shall be provided in the same manner as employee exposure records or analyses using exposure or medical records. Equipment inspections and testing records which pertain to employees (§ 1910.430) shall also be provided upon request to employees and their designated representatives.
( 3 ) Records and documents required by this standard shall be retained by the employer for the following period: ( i ) [Reserved]
( ii ) Safe practices manual (§ 1910.420)—current document only;
( iii ) Depth-time profile (§ 1910.422)—until completion of the recording of dive, or until completion of decompression procedure assessment where there has been an incident of decompression sickness;
( iv ) Recording of dive (§ 1910.423)—1 year, except 5 years where there has been an incident of decompression sickness;
( v ) Decompression procedure assessment evaluations (§ 1910.423)—5 years;
( vi ) Equipment inspections and testing records (§ 1910.430)—current entry or tag, or until equipment is withdrawn from service;
( vii ) Records of hospitalizations (§ 1910.440)—5 years.
( 4 ) The employer shall comply with any additional requirements set forth at 29 CFR 1910.1020,
( 5 ) [Reserved]
[42 FR 37668, July 22, 1977, as amended at 45 FR 35281, May 23, 1980; 47 FR 14706, Apr. 6, 1982; 51 FR 34562, Sept. 29, 1986; 61 FR 9242, Mar. 7, 1996; 71 FR 16672, Apr. 3, 2006; 76 FR 33607, June 8, 2011; 76 FR 80740, Dec. 27, 2011]
#### WALLACE v SHAW

Case No. AP85-10

Ninth Judicial Circuit, Orange County

April 18, 1986

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Jay Rose, Greater Orlando Legal Services, for appellant.

Sam Murrell for appellee.

OPINION OF THE COURT

CECIL H. BROWN, Circuit Judge.

*108This is an appeal from an Order entered by The Honorable Anthony H. Johnson, County Judge, denying a Motion to Set Aside Default and Final Judgment, said Motion have been filed following the entry of a Final Judgment but was predicated on RCrP 1.540(b). Motions under this Rule may be filed at any time. Therefore, the time for appeal is not thirty (30) days after the entry of Final Judgment, but thirty (30) days following entry of the Order. Final Judgment was entered February 28, 1985, and it was filed March 6, 1986.

The Court listened carefully to the argument of counsel and has thoroughly reviewed the file and law incident to the questions raised, and is convinced that the motions should have been granted. Service of process was insufficient, if not in fact void. The law was not followed. See F. S. 48.183. It plainly requires that when the tenant cannot be found upon the premises or at some other address where personal service can be made, posting will be sufficient provided written notice of service (complaint or summons) is mailed to the Defendant at the address of the premises by the Clerk. Posting was sufficient in this case, but no such written notice was mailed and so certified by the Clerk as required. The notice to pay rent or deliver possession was erroneous on its fact, that is to say, the amount of the rent required to be paid as an alternative to delivery of possession was not stated on the face of the notice. This made the notice defective. The Clerk of the Court should be directed not to accept a person’s complaint under circumstances where the notice is patently insufficient.

By some stretch of the imagination, it might be that the judgment for possession could have been entered, but certainly there was no jurisdiction for the entry of a money judgment. These views are all amply supported by the cases cited in counsel’s brief.

No supersedeas was posted. In the light of the expiration of so much time, the question of possession has become moot. It is, upon consideration thereof

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that to the extent the Order of Appeal addresses itself to the money judgment, the same is hereby reversed and remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed herein.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at Orlando, Orange County, Florida, this 18th day of April, 1986.
EPA Reg. No. 38083-1
###### Editorial Note on Subpart Z of Part 1910

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1910 appear at 84 FR 21597, May 14, 2019.

#### § 1910.1016 N-Nitrosodimethylamine.

See § 1910.1003, *13 carcinogens.*

[61 FR 9245, Mar. 7, 1996]
§ 18.1004 Admissibility of other evidence of contents. ( a ) The original is not required, and other evidence of the contents of a writing, recording, or photograph is admissible if: ( 1 ) *Originals lost or destroyed.* All originals are lost or have been destroyed, unless the proponent lost or destroyed them in bad faith; or
( 2 ) *Original not obtainable.* No original can be obtained by any available judicial process or procedure; or
( 3 ) *Original in possession of opponent.* At a time when an original was under the control of the party against whom offered, that party was put on notice, by the pleading or otherwise, that the contents would be a subject of proof at the hearing, and that party does not produce the original at the hearing; or
( 4 ) *Collateral matters.* The writing, recording, or photograph is not closely related to a controlling issue.
( b ) [Reserved]
# EUR-Lex - 31998R0738 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31998R0738

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 738/98 of 1 April 1998 derogating temporarily from Regulation (EC) No 1445/95 on rules of application for import and export licences in the beef and veal sector **

*
Official Journal L 102 , 02/04/1998 P. 0021 - 0021 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 738/98 of 1 April 1998 derogating temporarily from Regulation (EC) No 1445/95 on rules of application for import and export licences in the beef and veal sector

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 of 27 June 1968 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2634/97 (2), and in particular Articles 9 and 13 thereof,

Whereas Article 10(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1445/95 of 26 June 1995 on rules of application for import and export licences in the beef and veal sector and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2377/80 (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 260/98 (4), provides that export licences are to be issued on the fifth working day following that on which the application is lodged, provided that no specific action has been taken by the Commission in the meantime;

Whereas, in view of the public holidays in 1998 and the fact that the Official Journal is not published regularly on those days, the period for reflection of five days is too short to ensure sound management of the market and it should be extended temporarily to seven days;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Beef and Veal,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Notwithstanding Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1445/95, licences for applications lodged from:

- 6 to 8 April 1998,

- 27 to 29 April 1998,

- 18 to 20 May 1998,

- 21 to 30 December 1998,

shall be issued on the seventh working day following that on which the application is lodged, provided no specific action as indicated in Article 10(2) of that Regulation is taken by the Commission in the meantime.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 1 April 1998.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 148, 28. 6. 1968, p. 24.

(2) OJ L 356, 31. 12. 1997, p. 13.

(3) OJ L 143, 27. 6. 1995, p. 35.

(4) OJ L 25, 31. 1. 1998, p. 42.
#### § 1978.115 Special circumstances; waiver of rules.

In special circumstances not contemplated by the provisions of these rules, or for good cause shown, the ALJ or the ARB on review may, upon application, after three days notice to all parties, waive any rule or issue such orders as justice or the administration of STAA requires.
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion on Remand filed May 22, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-12-00509-CR

REYNALDO LAFAYETTE JELKS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 351st District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1247846

MEMORANDUM OPINION ON REMAND

Appellant Reynaldo Lafayette Jelks appeals his conviction for failure to 

comply with sex offender registration. On original submission, appellant argued

that there was insufficient evidence in the record to support the court’s costs of 

$275 reflected in the judgment. We agreed and modified the trial court’s judgment 

to delete the specific amount of costs assessed. Jelks v. State, 397 S.W.3d 759

(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013) vacated and remanded, No. PD-0381-13; 
2

2014 WL 1464845 (Tex. Crim. App. Apr. 16, 2014). The Court of Criminal 

Appeals vacated our judgment and remanded in light of its opinion in Johnson v. 

State, 423 S.W.3d 385 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

We review the assessment of court costs on appeal to determine if there is a 

basis for the costs, not to determine whether there was sufficient evidence offered 

at trial to prove each cost. Id. at 390. Traditional sufficiency-of-the-evidence 

standards of review do not apply. Id.

Generally, a bill of costs must (1) contain the items of cost, (2) be signed by 

the officer who charged the cost or the officer who is entitled to receive payment 

for the cost, and (3) be certified. Id. at 392–93; see Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. 

arts. 103.001, 103.006. The record in this case contains a computer-screen printout 

of the Harris County Justice Information Management System (JIMS) “Cost Bill 

Assessment.” In Johnson, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that a JIMS report 

constitutes an appropriate bill of costs if the report itemizes the accrued court costs

in the appellant’s case, contains a certification by the trial court clerk that the 

document is a true and correct copy of the original, and is signed by a deputy clerk. 

Johnson, 423 S.W.3d at 393. The JIMS report in this record is a compliant bill of 

costs because it contains an itemized list of costs in appellant’s case, contains a 

certification by the district clerk that the document is a true and correct copy of the 

original, and is signed by a deputy district clerk. See id. at 392–93. The fact that 

the bill of costs was not prepared until after the court signed the judgment does not 

defeat the lawfulness of the bill of costs. Id. at 394. (“[M]atters pertaining to the 

imposition of court costs need not be brought to the attention of the trial court, 

including a bill of costs prepared after a criminal trial.”).

The trial court assessed $275 in costs against appellant. The sum of the 

itemized costs in the JIMS report is $275. There being no challenge to any specific 
3

cost or the basis for the assessment of such cost, the bill of costs supports $275 of 

the costs assessed in the judgment. Id. at 396.

On remand, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Busby and Brown.

Do Not Publish — TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
# EUR-Lex - 32000D0691 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32000D0691

**2000/691/EC: Commission Decision of 25 October 2000 amending Decision 97/467/EC drawing up provisional lists of third country establishments from which Member States authorise imports of rabbit meat and farmed game meat (notified under document number C(2000) 3093) (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal L 286 , 11/11/2000 P. 0037 - 0037 *

Commission Decision

of 25 October 2000

amending Decision 97/467/EC drawing up provisional lists of third country establishments from which Member States authorise imports of rabbit meat and farmed game meat

(notified under document number C(2000) 3093)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2000/691/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Decision 95/408/EC of 22 June 1995 on the conditions for drawing up, for an interim period, provisional lists of third country establishments from which Member States are authorised to import certain products of animal origin, fishery products and live bivalve molluscs(1), as last amended by Decision 98/603/EC(2), and in particular Article 21(1) and Article 7 thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Commission Decision 97/467/EC(3), as last amended by Decision 2000/496/EC(4), drew up provisional lists of third country establishments from which Member States authorise imports of rabbit meat and farmed game meats. The list of establishments drawn up by the aforementioned Decision does not include establishments producing ratite meat.

(2) The list of third countries from which Member States are authorised to import ratite meat, the animal health conditions and veterinary certification required for import of this meat in the Community have recently been established.

(3) Member States in accordance with the provisions of Decision 97/467/EC may until 1 October 2000 authorise establishments for import of ratite meat.

(4) The date of 1 October 2000 shall be replaced by 30 April 2001 to allow for a list of third country establishments to be drawn up and the competent authorities of third countries to provide the Commission with the necessary health guarantees, and with a view to maintaining existing trade.

(5) The measures provided for by this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

In Article 1(2a) of Decision 97/467/EC the date "1 October 2000" is replaced by "30 April 2001".

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 25 October 2000.

For the Commission

David Byrne

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 243, 11.10.1995, p. 17.

(2) OJ L 289, 28.10.1998, p. 36.

(3) OJ L 199, 26.7.1997, p. 57.

(4) OJ L 200, 8.8.2000, p. 39.
#### § 1601.36 Action on petition.

Upon the filing of such petition, the Commission shall consider the same and may thereupon either grant or deny the petition in whole or in part, conduct an appropriate proceeding thereon, or make other disposition of the petition. Should the petition be denied in whole or in part, prompt notice shall be given of the denial, accompanied by a simple statement of the grounds unless the denial be self-explanatory.

[42 FR 55388, Oct. 14, 1977. Redesignated at 56 FR 9625, Mar. 7, 1991]
Exhibit 24



                        POWER OF ATTORNEY

                     KENTUCKY POWER COMPANY
      ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 1O-K FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED
      __________________DECEMBER_31,_1995_________________


     The undersigned directors of KENTUCKY POWER COMPANY, a
Kentucky corporation (the "Company"), do hereby constitute and
appoint E. LINN DRAPER, JR., G. P. MALONEY and P. J. DeMARIA, and
each of them, their attorneys-in-fact and agents, to execute for
them, and in their names, and in any and all of their capacities,
the Annual Report of the Company on Form lO-K, pursuant to Section
13 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 1995, and any and all amendments thereto, and to
file the same, with all exhibits thereto and other documents in
connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of them,
full power and authority to do and perform every act and thing re-
quired or necessary to be done, as fully to all intents and
purposes as the undersigned might or could do in person, hereby
ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and
agents, or any of them, may lawfully do or cause to be done by
virtue hereof.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have signed these presents
this 28th day of February, 1996.



_/s/_P._J._DeMaria____________     _/s/_G._P._Maloney____________
P. J. DeMaria                      G. P. Maloney


_/s/_E._Linn_Draper,_Jr.______     _/s/_James_J._Markowsky_______
E. Linn Draper, Jr.                James J. Markowsky


_/s/_Wm._J._Lhota_____________     _/s/_J._H._Vipperman__________
Wm. J. Lhota                       J. H. Vipperman




[ANNUAL\103.96C]<PAGE>
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed July 21, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D20-1704 Lower Tribunal No. F17-21478B

________________ 

### Richard Perez-Mora , Appellant, vs. 

### The State of Florida , Appellee. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Mark Blumstein, Judge. Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Shannon Hemmendinger, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Brian H. Zack, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and LOGUE, and LINDSEY, JJ. PER CURIAM.2

Affirmed.
Editorial Note on Part 1926
Editorial Notes: 1. At 44 FR 8577, Feb. 9, 1979, and corrected at 44 FR 20940, Apr. 6, 1979, OSHA reprinted without change the entire text of 29 CFR part 1926 together with certain General Industry Occupational Safety and Health Standards contained in 29 CFR part 1910, which have been identified as also applicable to construction work. This republication developed a single set of OSHA regulations for both labor and management forces within the construction industry. 2. Nomenclature changes to part 1926 appear at 84 FR 21597, May 14, 2019.

§ 1926.16 Rules of construction. ( a ) The prime contractor and any subcontractors may make their own arrangements with respect to obligations which might be more appropriately treated on a jobsite basis rather than individually. Thus, for example, the prime contractor and his subcontractors may wish to make an express agreement that the prime contractor or one of the subcontractors will provide all required first-aid or toilet facilities, thus relieving the subcontractors from the actual, but not any legal, responsibility (or, as the case may be, relieving the other subcontractors from this responsibility). In no case shall the prime contractor be relieved of overall responsibility for compliance with the requirements of this part for all work to be performed under the contract.
( b ) By contracting for full performance of a contract subject to section 107 of the Act, the prime contractor assumes all obligations prescribed as employer obligations under the standards contained in this part, whether or not he subcontracts any part of the work.
( c ) To the extent that a subcontractor of any tier agrees to perform any part of the contract, he also assumes responsibility for complying with the standards in this part with respect to that part. Thus, the prime contractor assumes the entire responsibility under the contract and the subcontractor assumes responsibility with respect to his portion of the work. With respect to subcontracted work, the prime contractor and any subcontractor or subcontractors shall be deemed to have joint responsibility.
( d ) Where joint responsibility exists, both the prime contractor and his subcontractor or subcontractors, regardless of tier, shall be considered subject to the enforcement provisions of the Act.
Exhibit
23.1








CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS








April 12,
2007





Board of
Directors


Marshall
Holdings International, Inc.


North Las
Vegas, Nevada





We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in this Form 10-KSB filed on or about
April 13, 2007 of the report dated April 10, 2007, relating to the consolidated
financial statements of Marshall Holdings International, Inc. for the year ended
December 31, 2006, and to our inclusion as a named expert.  Our report
included an explanatory paragraph regarding  Marshall’s ability to
continue as a going concern.








/s/  Madsen
& Associates CPA’s, Inc.





Madsen
& Associates CPA’s, Inc.


684 East
Vine Street, #3


Murray,
Utah 84107
November 17, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

COLIN M. DEMPSEY, Appellant

NO. 14-14-00634-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. 

Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the 

judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
#### Henni Mansbacher, Respondent, *v.*Prudential Insurance Company of America, Appellant.

Submitted April 19, 1937;

decided April 27, 1937.

Motion for reargument denied, with ten dollars costs and necessary printing disbursements. (See 273 N. Y. 140.)