alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Emilio ROMERO-PEREZ, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 02-71767.

Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 5, 2004.*

Decided March 16, 2004.

*262Nancy E. Miller, Robert L. Reeves *&*Associates, Pasadena, CA, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Lagu-na Niguel, CA, Los Angeles District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Jeffrey J. Bernstein, Terri J. Scadron, Paul Fiorino, Nelda C. Reyna, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before NOONAN, KLEINFELD, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Emilio Romero-Perez (“Romero-Perez”), a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”). The Board order dismissed Romero-Perez’s appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of Romero-Perez’s application for cancellation of removal under Section 240A(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”).

We lack jurisdiction to review the Board’s determination that Romero-Perez failed to establish the requisite hardship, a discretionary determination ineligible for appellate review under INA section 242(a)(2)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). *See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft,*827 F.3d 887, 888 (9th Cir.2003)(charaeterizing the “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” determination as “a subjective, discretionary judgment that has been carved out of [the court’s] appellate jurisdiction”).

Additionally, Romero-Perez’s due process claims fail, since he did not properly present them to the Board. “[C]orrectable procedural errors” — even those that implicate due process concerns—must be presented to the Board before being raised in this court. *Liu v. Waters,*55 F.3d 421, 425-26 (9th Cir.1995).

The petition is DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.48 Length of pleadings. ( a ) Affidavits, statements, tables of contents and summaries of filings, and other materials which are submitted with and factually support a pleading are not counted in determining the length of the pleading. If other materials are submitted with a pleading, they will be counted in determining its length; and if the length of the pleadings, as so computed, is greater than permitted by the provisions of this chapter, the pleading will be returned without consideration.
( b ) It is the policy of the Commission that requests for permission to file pleadings in excess of the length prescribed by the provisions of this chapter shall not be routinely granted. Where the filing period is 10 days or less, the request shall be made within 2 business days after the period begins to run. Where the period is more than 10 days, the request shall be filed at least 10 days before the filing date. (See § 1.4.) If a timely request is made, the pleading need not be filed earlier than 2 business days after the Commission acts upon the request.
[41 FR 14871, Apr. 8, 1976, and 49 FR 40169, Oct. 15, 1984]
EXHIBIT 12.2
   1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of National Grid plc;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material 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 report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The companys other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining
disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))
and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and
15d -15(f)) for the company and have:
 (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which
this report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;(c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the companys disclosure controls and
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(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that
has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the companys
internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the companys auditors and the
audit committee of the companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the companys ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the companys internal control over financial
reporting.
  /s/ Andrew Bonfield

Andrew BonfieldTitle: Finance DirectorNational Grid plc
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"2020-1144: Intex Recreation Corp. v. Team Worldwide Corporation - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"PqQnMTprck\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/12-10-2020-2020-1144-intex-recreation-corp-v-team-worldwide-corporation-audio-uploaded\/\">2020-1144: Intex Recreation Corp. v. Team Worldwide Corporation<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/12-10-2020-2020-1144-intex-recreation-corp-v-team-worldwide-corporation-audio-uploaded\/embed\/#?secret=PqQnMTprck\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“2020-1144: Intex Recreation Corp. v. Team Worldwide Corporation” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"PqQnMTprck\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Oral argument audio posted: Intex Recreation Corp. v. Team Worldwide Corporation (mp3) Appeal Number: 2020-1144 To listen to more oral argument recordings, follow this link: Listen To Oral Arguments."}
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 99

                                                                  March 29, 2002

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

RE:  Annual Report on Form 10-K of Cotelligent, Inc.

Pursuant to temporary note 3T, Cotelligent, Inc. ("Cotelligent") has received a
letter of representation from Arthur Andersen LLP ("Andersen") stating that the
audit of Cotelligent's financial statements included in Cotelligent's annual
report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001 was subject to
Andersen's quality control system for the U.S. accounting and auditing practice
to provide reasonable assurance that the engagement was conducted in compliance
with professional standards, and that there was appropriate continuity of
Andersen personnel working on the audit and availability of Andersen national
office consultation. Availability of personnel at foreign affiliates of Andersen
was not relevant to Andersen's audit.

Very truly yours,

COTELLIGENT, INC.


By:/S/ Curtis J. Parker
   --------------------------
     Curtis J. Parker
     Chief Financial Officer
No. 11-8631.

#### Perez-Amaya et al. *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 11-9732.

#### Paneto *v.*United States.

C. A. 1st Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
# Comments on: 18-1108: PRISM TECHNOLOGIES LLC v. SPRINT SPECTRUM L.P. [OPINION], Nonprecedential
175P16

#### N.C. Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Medical Assistance v. Parker Home Care, LLC Division of Medical Assistance, N.C. Department of Health and Human Services v. Parker Home Care, LLC

1. State’s Motion for Temporary Stay (COA15-1026; COA15-1033)

1. Allowed 05/11/2016

2. State’s Petition for *Writ of Supersedeas*

*2.*

3. State’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

3.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Cigna Healthcare of Texas, Inc. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company v. S J Associated Pathologists, PLLC

Appellate case number: 01

- 20

- 00025

- CV

Trial court case number: 2019

- 79138

Trial court: 190th District Court of Harris County

This interlocutory appeal was abated on March 26, 2020 because the underlying lawsuit

had been removed to federal court. The Uni ted States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit subsequently held that the federal court lacked subject

- matter jurisdiction and ordered the case remanded back to state court. Accordingly, on August 4, 2020, the federal district court issued an

order rema nding the case back to state court.

Appellants h a ve filed an opposed motion requesting that this Court (1) lift the abatement and (2) allow appellants to supplement the appellate record and amend appellants’ brief. Appellee filed a response that did not ob ject to lifting the abatement but opposed appellants’ requests to supplement the record and file an amended brief. Appellants’ motion to lift the abatement, supplement the appellate record, and file an amended brief is GRANTED.

The supplemental record sha ll be filed within 10 days of this order. Appellants’ amended

brief shall be filed within 30 days of this order.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

___

/s/ Sarah B. Landau

_____

Acting individually

Date:

___ October 6, 2020

____
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"21-2024: AMARIN PHARMA, INC. v. HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC. [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"OCJAtt6r9I\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/02-15-2022-21-2024-amarin-pharma-inc-v-hikma-pharmaceuticals-usa-inc-rule-36-judgment-21-2024-rule_36_judgment-2-15-2022_1908342\/\">21-2024: AMARIN PHARMA, INC. v. HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC. [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/02-15-2022-21-2024-amarin-pharma-inc-v-hikma-pharmaceuticals-usa-inc-rule-36-judgment-21-2024-rule_36_judgment-2-15-2022_1908342\/embed\/#?secret=OCJAtt6r9I\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“21-2024: AMARIN PHARMA, INC. v. HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC. [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"OCJAtt6r9I\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"RULE 36 JUDGMENT Posted: AMARIN PHARMA, INC. v. HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC. [RULE 36 JUDGMENT](pdf) Appeal Number: 21-2024 Origin: DCT Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
#### § 302-17.45 What if I incur income tax liability to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands or any other territory or possession of the United States?

If you are relocated to, from, or within the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands or any territory or possession of the United States that is covered by the definition in § 302-17.1, your agency will have to determine the tax rules of that locality and then include those taxes in your RITA calculation, as applicable.
§ 302-7.5 What happens if the HHG shipment includes PBP&E, and it might exceed, or did exceed, the 18,000 pounds net weight allowance? ( a ) Separate the PBP&E and have the HHG carrier estimate the weight of the PBP&E before the HHG shipment is picked up. Subtract 110 percent of the estimated PBP&E weight (to adjust for packing materials) from the estimated gross weight as shown on the shipping documents (*i.e.,* net weight minus the PBP&E minus 10 percent of the PBP&E). If the result is more than the 18,000 pounds net weight allowance, then the shipment exceeds the net weight allowance.
( b ) If you did not discover that the HHG shipment exceeded the net weight allowance in advance, and if you did not weigh or estimate the PBP&E before shipping it, then weigh the PBP&E before it is delivered. Determine if the shipment exceeds the net weight allowance by applying the formula in paragraph (a) of this section.
( c ) If the calculation in paragraph (a) of this section shows that the shipment does not exceed the net weight allowance, then the agency may transport and pay for shipping the PBP&E plus packing materials with the household goods.
( d ) However, if the calculation in paragraph (a) of this section shows that the shipment may exceed the net weight allowance, and if the employee was authorized PBP&E, then the employee must pay for shipping all weight that exceeds the net weight allowance for their HHG, minus the PBP&E and packing materials for both. The agency may then pay for shipping the PBP&E as an administrative expense.
( e ) The agency may require reasonable documentation of the items requesting to be shipped as PBP&E and the weight of the PBP&E.
[FTR Amdt. 2011-01, 76 FR 18339, Apr. 1, 2011]
§ 60-741.1 Purpose, applicability, and construction. ( a ) *Purpose.* The purpose of this part is to set forth the standards for compliance with section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 793), which prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities and requires Government contractors and subcontractors to take affirmative action to employ and advance in employment qualified individuals with disabilities.
( b ) *Applicability.* This part applies to all Government contracts and subcontracts in excess of $10,000 for the purchase, sale or use of personal property or nonpersonal services (including construction): *Provided,* That subpart C of this part applies only as described in § 60-741.40(a). Compliance by the contractor with the provisions of this part will not necessarily determine its compliance with other statutes, and compliance with other statutes will not necessarily determine its compliance with this part: *Provided,* That compliance shall also satisfy the employment provisions of the Department of Labor's regulations implementing section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (see 29 CFR 32.2(b)) when the contractor is also subject to those requirements.
( c ) *Construction* — ( 1 ) *In general.* Except as otherwise provided in this part, this part does not apply a lesser standard than the standards applied under title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 12101 *et seq.*) or the regulations issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission pursuant to that title (29 CFR part 1630). The Interpretive Guidance on Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act set out as an appendix to 29 CFR part 1630 issued pursuant to that title may be relied upon for guidance in interpreting the parallel non-discrimination provisions of this part.
( 2 ) *Benefits under State worker's compensation laws.* Nothing in this part alters the standards for determining eligibility for benefits under State worker's compensation laws or under State and Federal disability benefit programs.
( 3 ) *Relationship to other laws.* This part does not invalidate or limit the remedies, rights, and procedures under any Federal law or the law of any State or political subdivision that provides greater or equal protection for the rights of individuals with disabilities as compared to the protection afforded by this part. It may be a defense to a charge of violation of this part that a challenged action is required or necessitated by another Federal law or regulation, or that another Federal law or regulation prohibits an action (including the provision of a particular reasonable accommodation) that would otherwise be required by this part.
9 June 2016

005PA15

#### Commscope Credit Union v. Butler and Burke, LLP, et al.

1. Third-Party Defs’ Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Record

1. Allowed 04/25/2016

2. Third-Party Defs’ Motion to Substitute Counsel

2. Allowed 04/25/2016
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR ITS QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1995 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000007610
<NAME> ARTISTIC GREETINGS INCORPORATED
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                             226
<SECURITIES>                                     3,261
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,859
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      9,540
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                24,639
<PP&E>                                          25,459
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,349
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  49,561
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,865
<BONDS>                                          5,094<F1>
<COMMON>                                           654
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      17,421
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    49,561
<SALES>                                         66,855
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                66,855
<CGS>                                           27,646
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   43,115
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   730
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 573
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,636)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,620
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,016)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,016)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.50)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.50)
<FN>
<F1>Total long term debt
</FN>
        

</TABLE>