alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BENJAMIN IBARRA LIRA, AKA 

Benjamin I. Lira, AKA Benjamin Ibarra, 

AKA Benjamin Ibarra Lira, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 15-72416 

Agency No. A074-215-404 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 17, 2021**

Before: SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

Benjamin Ibarra Lira, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of 

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an 

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision pretermitting his application for cancellation of 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

FILED

AUG 20 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-72416 

removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo 

questions of law and claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. 

Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny in part and dismiss in 

part the petition for review. 

The agency did not err in determining that Ibarra Lira failed to establish that 

his conviction under California Health & Safety Code (“CHSC”) § 11350(a) is not 

a controlled substance violation that renders him ineligible for cancellation of 

removal. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), 1229b(b)(1)(C); Lazo v. Wilkinson, 

989 F.3d 705, 714 (9th Cir. 2021) (holding that CHSC § 11350 is divisible as to 

controlled substance and relying on the charging document and guilty-plea

colloquy to conclude the conviction was for possession of cocaine and thus a 

violation of a law “relating to a controlled substance”). Thus, Ibarra Lira’s 

cancellation of removal claim fails. 

As to Ibarra Lira’s contention that the IJ erred or violated due process by not 

granting a continuance, the BIA did not err in concluding the argument is without 

merit. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to 

prevail on a due process claim). To the extent Ibarra Lira raises, in his opening 

brief, a separate argument that the IJ did not allow him an opportunity to present 

evidence, we lack jurisdiction to consider his contention. See Agyeman v. INS, 296 

F.3d 871, 877 (9th Cir. 2002) (due process claims based on correctable procedural 
3 15-72416 

errors may not be entertained unless they were raised below). 

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the 

mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
No. 11-5260.

#### Gonzalez *v.*United States.

C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.
{"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":"18-2338: NETWORK-1 TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY [OPINION], Precedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"etlejOgYNt\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/9-24-2020-18-2338-network-1-technologies-inc-v-hewlett-packard-company-opinion-18-2338-opinion-9-24-2020_1658534\/\">18-2338: NETWORK-1 TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY [OPINION], Precedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/9-24-2020-18-2338-network-1-technologies-inc-v-hewlett-packard-company-opinion-18-2338-opinion-9-24-2020_1658534\/embed\/#?secret=etlejOgYNt\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“18-2338: NETWORK-1 TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY [OPINION], Precedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"etlejOgYNt\" 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":"Opinions\/Orders posted: NETWORK-1 TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 18-2338 Origin: DCT Precedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
#### § 51.403 Carriers eligible for suspension or modification under section 251(f)(2) of the Act.

A LEC is not eligible for a suspension or modification of the requirements of section 251(b) or section 251(c) of the Act pursuant to section 251(f)(2) of the Act if such LEC, at the holding company level, has two percent or more of the subscriber lines installed in the aggregate nationwide.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COTELLIGENT, INC. CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED MARCH 31,
2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001004963
<NAME> COTELLIGENT, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           4,794
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,615
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,880
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               116,308
<PP&E>                                          10,730
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,033
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 159,410
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           73,378
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           151
<OTHER-SE>                                      85,829
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   159,410
<SALES>                                        105,564
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               105,564
<CGS>                                           69,995
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   69,995
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                44,967
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,915
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (13,313)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (4,660)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,653)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (9,990)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (18,643)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.30)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.30)


</TABLE>
CC Filed by Filing Services Canada Inc. 403-717-3898


Exhibit 4.2




SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION AMENDMENT

AMENDING AGREEMENT

THIS AMENDING AGREEMENT dated August 24, 2005 

1.

Definitions

“Declaration of Trust” means the Amended and Restated Declaration of Trust of the Trust dated August 24, 2005;

“Supplemental Declaration Effective Date” means such day that is the seventh clear trading day on the Toronto Stock Exchange following the Supplemental Declaration Effective Time or such other day or days as the Trustees may determine;

“Supplemental Declaration Effective Time” means the first moment in time on the Supplemental Declaration Effective Date(s); and

“Trust” means the Fording Canadian Coal Trust.

Any capitalized terms used and not expressly defined herein have the meaning set out in the Management Information Circular of the Trust dated April 2, 2005.

2.

Amendment of the Declaration of Trust

As of the Supplemental Declaration Effective Date(s), the Declaration of Trust is hereby amended to provide for a three-for-one subdivision of the outstanding Units held by Unitholders (other than Dissenting Unitholders) as of the Supplemental Declaration Effective Time(s).

For certainty, the Supplemental Declaration Effective Date and the Supplemental Declaration Effective Time may be different for different groups of Unitholders.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Chairman of the Trustees of the Trust, having been duly authorized by the Unitholders of the Trust, have caused these presents to be signed as of the date first above written.

SIGNED & DELIVERED

In the presence of

				
	





“Colin S. Grierson”

	 
	 
	





“Michael A. Grandin”


	Witness

	 
	 
	Michael A. Grandin
§ 64.1604 Prohibition on transmission of inaccurate or misleading caller identification information. ( a ) No person or entity in the United States, nor any person or entity outside the United States if the recipient is within the United States, shall, with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value, knowingly cause, directly, or indirectly, any caller identification service to transmit or display misleading or inaccurate caller identification information in connection with any voice service or text messaging service.
( b ) Paragraph (a) of this section shall not apply to: ( 1 ) Lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity of a law enforcement agency of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or of an intelligence agency of the United States; or
( 2 ) Activity engaged in pursuant to a court order that specifically authorizes the use of caller identification manipulation.
( c ) A person or entity that blocks or seeks to block a caller identification service from transmitting or displaying that person or entity's own caller identification information pursuant to § 64.1601(b) of this part shall not be liable for violating the prohibition in paragraph (a) of this section. This paragraph (c) does not relieve any person or entity that engages in telemarketing, as defined in § 64.1200(f)(10) of this part, of the obligation to transmit caller identification information under § 64.1601(e).
[76 FR 43205, July 20, 2011, as amended at 84 FR 45678, Aug. 30, 2019]
Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            College of Information and Cyberspace
                    National Defense University
                CIC
        Search
                    Search CIC:
                        Search
                Search CIC:
                    Search
    Home

    About 
        Mission & Vision

    Faculty & Staff

    Fact Sheet

    Alumni

    Internships

    FAQ

    Admissions 
        Eligibility Requirements

    Admissions Calendar

    Application Instructions

    Apply Online

    International Students

    Academics 
        Graduate Catalog

    M.S. in Strategic Information and Cyberspace Studies
        
        JPME Master's Degree

    Cyber Workforce Master's Degree (Part Time)

    Leadership Development Programs

    Graduate Certificates

    Academic Partners

    Current Students 
        JPME II  Incoming Students

    LDP Incoming Students

    Student Registration

    Bring Your Own Device

    IA Compliance

    Completion Procedures / Order Transcripts

    Student Services and Resources

    Events
    
        Cyber Beacon

    Cyber PME Colloquium

    Hopper Award

    Lecture Series

    CYBERCOM Symposium

    NEWS

    UC2
    
        About

    Events

    Work With Us

    Center for Cybersecurity
    
        About

    Cybersecurity Center POC

    Cybersecurity Supporting Faculty

    CAE-CDE CISO Certificate Program

    Cybersecurity Trending News

    Cyber Labs
        
        Ethical Hacking

    Critical Infrastructure - SCADA

    Cyber Exercises
        
        Tabletop Exercise

    Cyber Competitions

    Cyber Resources and Awareness

    Stakeholder / Industry Advisory Council

    Contact 
        Contact Us

    Directions

    Access to Ft. McNair

    Map of Ft. McNair  Home
  NEWS
  News & Announcements
 News & Announcements News
 Iowa State University Third Place
 
 SHARE
 PRINT
 National Defense University


College of Information and Cyberspace

300 Fifth Ave., Bldg. 62
Fort Lesley J. McNair
Washington, DC 20319-5066

202-685-6300
                    Stay Connected
                
                
                DOD Privacy & Security
 DOD Links Disclaimer
 DOD Social Media Policy
 DOD Web Policy
 FOIA
 NDU System of Records Notice
 NDU Privacy & Security Notice
 No FEAR Act
 Open GOV
 Plain Writing Act
 Section 508
 Small Business Act
 USA.gov
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
Blueprint





 











 Exhibit 10.11



 



Amendment to Convertible Note


 


Reference is made
to that certain 6% Convertible Note made by Smart Server, Inc. (the
"Company") in favor of Berrard Holdings Limited Partnership (the
“Holder”) dated July 13, 2016 and having and aggregate
principal amount of $191,858.25 (the
“Note”).


 


For
good and valuable consideration, including the funding by Holder of
the Company's bank account with Wells Fargo, N.A. in the amount of
$5,000.00 and the payment by Holder of certain invoices of the
Company in the amount of $500.00, the Company and Holder hereby
agree that the aggregate principal amount of the note shall be
increased by $5,500.00 such that the new aggregate principal amount
of the Note shall be $197,358.25, effective as of August 31, 2016.
Other than as expressly set forth herein, all other terms of the
Note remain unchanged.


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment to
Note as of the date first above written.


 


 


	
 

	

SMART
SERVER, INC.


a
Nevada corporation


 


 


	
 

	

By:
/s/ Steven
Berrard               




Name:
Steven R. Berrard


Title:
Chief Executive Officer
###### Editorial Note on Part 36

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 36 appear at 74 FR 23956, May 22, 2009, 77 FR 30411, May 23, 2012, 82 FR 25538, June 2, 2017, and corrected at 83 FR 4153, Jan. 30, 2018. Nomenclature changes to part 36 also appear at 83 FR 63587, Dec. 11, 2018, and 84 FR 4360, Feb. 15, 2019.

#### § 36.505 Accumulated amortization—Tangible—Account 3400.

Amounts in these accounts are apportioned among the operations on the basis of the separation of the related accounts.

[52 FR 17229, May 6, 1987, as amended at 83 FR 63587, Dec. 11, 2018]
24 September 2015

299P15

#### State v. Jessica Rasheeda Jordan

1. State’s Motion for Temporary Stay (COA114-1070)

1. Allowed 08/24/2015

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

*2.*

3. State’s PDR under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

3.
§ 64.2313 Timely basis. ( a ) For purposes of § 64.2309, a telecommunications carrier provides subscriber list information on a timely basis only if the carrier provides the requested information to the requesting directory publisher either: ( 1 ) At the time at which, or according to the schedule under which, the directory publisher requests that the subscriber list information be provided;
( 2 ) When the carrier does not receive at least thirty days advance notice of the time the directory publisher requests that subscriber list information be provided, on the first business day that is at least thirty days from date the carrier receives that request; or
( 3 ) At a time determined in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) If a carrier's internal systems do not permit the carrier to provide subscriber list information within either of the time frames specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the carrier shall: ( 1 ) Within thirty days of receiving the publisher's request, inform the directory publisher that the requested schedule cannot be accommodated and tell the directory publisher which schedules can be accommodated; and
( 2 ) Adhere to the schedule the directory publisher chooses from among the available schedules.
§ 3.28 Denial of privilege. ( a ) The Commission, in its sole discretion, may refuse to grant an application to become an accounting authority for any of the following reasons: ( 1 ) Failure to provide evidence of acceptable financial responsibility;
( 2 ) If the applicant, in the opinion of the FCC reviewing official, does not possess the qualifications necessary to the proper functioning of an accounting authority;
( 3 ) Application is not personally signed by the proper official(s);
( 4 ) Applicant does not provide evidence that accounting operations will take place in the United States or its territories and the applicant does not already possess an AAIC issued by another administration;
( 5 ) Application is incomplete, the applicant fails to provide additional information requested by the Commission or the applicant indicates that it cannot meet a particular provision; or
( 6 ) When the Commission determines that the grant of an authorization is contrary to the public interest.
( b ) These rules provide sufficient latitude to address defects in applications. Entities seeking review should follow procedures set forth in § 1.106 or § 1.115 of this chapter.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7354

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MUSTAFA MUHAMMAD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:14-cr-00055-REP-DJN-1)

Submitted: February 17, 2022 Decided: February 23, 2022

Before AGEE and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mustafa Muhammad, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Mustafa Muhammad appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release. Upon review, we discern no 

abuse of discretion in the district court’s determination that, under the pertinent 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) sentencing factors, compassionate release was not warranted. See United States 

v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329-31 (4th Cir.) (providing standard of review and outlining steps 

for evaluating compassionate release motions), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021). 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
§ 32.4100 Net current deferred operating income taxes. ( a ) This account shall include the balance of income tax expense related to current items from regulated operations which have been deferred to later periods as a result of the normalized method of accounting for tax differentials authorized by this Commission and not provided for elsewhere.
( b ) As regulated assets or liabilities which generated the deferred income tax are reclassified from long-term or noncurrent status to current, the appropriate deferred income tax shall be reclassified from Account 4340, Net Noncurrent Deferred Operating Income Taxes, to this account.
( c ) This account shall be debited or credited with the amount being debited or credited to Account 7250, Provision For Deferred Operating Income Taxes—Net, in accordance with that account's description and § 32.22 of subpart B.
( d ) The classification of deferred income taxes as current or noncurrent shall follow the classification of the asset or liability that gave rise to the deferred income tax. If there is no related asset or liability, classification shall be based on the expected turnaround of the temporary differences.
( e ) Subsidiary record categories shall be maintained in order that the company may separately report the amounts contained herein that are property related and those that are nonproperty related. Such subsidiary record categories shall be reported as required by part 43 of this Commission's Rules and Regulations.
[51 FR 43499, Dec. 2, 1986, as amended at 59 FR 9419, Feb. 28, 1994]
#### § 73.1750 Discontinuance of operation.

The licensee of each station shall provide notification to the FCC in a “Cancellation Application” via LMS of the permanent discontinuance of operation at least two days before operation is discontinued. Immediately after discontinuance of operation, the licensee shall forward the station license and other instruments of authorization to the FCC, Attention: Audio Division (radio) or Video Division (television), Media Bureau, for cancellation. The license of any station that fails to transmit broadcast signals for any consecutive 12 month period expires as a matter of law at the end of that period, notwithstanding any provision, term, or condition of the license to the contrary. If a licensee surrenders its license pursuant to an interference reduction agreement, and its surrender is contingent on the grant of another application, the licensee must identify in its notification the contingencies involved.

[89 FR 7257, Feb. 1, 2024]