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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EBER ISAAC PORRAS,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 12-71379

Agency No. A070-967-311

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 19, 2013** 

Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Eber Isaac Porras, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of

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

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his motion to reopen deportation

proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

FILED

DEC 6 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * 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).
abuse of discretion the agency’s denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v.

Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the

petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Porras’s motion to reopen

as untimely where the motion was filed thirteen years after IJ’s final order of

deportation, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1), and Porras failed to establish prima facie

eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under the Convention

Against Torture, see Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 986 (agency may deny a motion to

reopen based on failure to establish a prima facie case for the relief sought);

Mendez-Gutierrez v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 1168, 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) (“vague and

conclusory allegations” insufficient to establish prima facie eligibility). Because

Porras’s motion did not allege facts that would establish eligibility for relief, he

was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(B).

Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s decision not to exercise

its sua sponte authority to reopen deportation proceedings. See Mejia-Hernandez

v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 

2
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.                  

###### Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

# AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

# DATE AND TIME:

Thursday, September 7, 2006, 9:30 a.m. eastern time. 

# PLACE:

Clearance M. Mitchell, Jr. Conference Room on the Ninth Floor of the EEOC Office Building, 1801 “L” Street, NW., Washington, DC 20507. 

# STATUS:

The meeting will be open to the public.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

 

## Open Session

1. Announcement of Notation Votes, and

2. Federal Sector EEO Investigations—Panels of Invited Experts.

# Note:

                        In accordance with the Sunshine Act, the meeting will be open to public observation of the Commission's deliberations and voting. (In addition to publishing notices on EEOC Commission meetings in the                         **Federal Register**                        , the Commission also provides a recorded announcement a full week in advance on future Commission sessions).                     

Please telephone (202) 663-7100 (voice) and (202) 663-4074 (TTY) at any time for information on these meetings. The EEOC provides sign language interpretation at Commission meetings for the hearing impaired. Requests for other reasonable accommodations may be made by using the voice and TTY numbers listed above.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Stephen Llewellyn, Acting Executive Officer on (202) 663-4070.

Issued August 28, 2006.

Stephen Llewellyn,

Acting Executive Officer, Executive Secretariat.

[FR Doc. 06-7352 Filed 8-28-06; 2:53 pm]

BILLING CODE 6570-06-M
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5074

To grant authority to Guam to give a preference, in awarding contracts,

to persons employing citizens, nationals, or permanent resident aliens

of the United States.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 22, 1994

Mr. UNDERWOOD introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Natural Resources

A BILL

To grant authority to Guam to give a preference, in awarding

contracts, to persons employing citizens, nationals, or

permanent resident aliens of the United States.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Guam Labor Pref5 erence Act’’.
2

•HR 5074 IH

1 SEC. 2. AUTHORITY FOR CONTRACT PREFERENCE FOR

2 PERSONS EMPLOYING CITIZENS, NATIONALS,

3 OR PERMANENT RESIDENT ALIENS OF THE

4 UNITED STATES.

5 The Organic Act of Guam (48 U.S.C. 1421 et seq.)

6 is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

7 ‘‘SEC. 36. As the laws of Guam may direct, the gov8 ernment of Guam may give a preference, in the award of

9 a contract, to persons that demonstrate that not less than

10 a specified percentage of the individuals employed in

11 Guam by the persons are citizens or nationals of the

12 United States or are aliens lawfully admitted to the

13 United States for permanent residence.’’.

Æ
May 21, 2012

No. 11-1166.

#### Rector, Wardens and Vestrymen of Christ Church in Savannah, et al. *v.*Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Georgia, Inc., et al.

Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 46.
§ 73.6001 Eligibility and service requirements. ( a ) Qualified low power television licensees which, during the 90-day period ending November 28, 1999, operated their stations in a manner consistent with the programming and operational standards set forth in the Community Broadcasters Protection Act of 1999, may be accorded primary status as Class A television licensees.
( b ) Class A television broadcast stations are required to: ( 1 ) Broadcast a minimum of 18 hours per day; and
( 2 ) Broadcast an average of at least three hours per week of locally produced programming each quarter.
( c ) Licensed Class A television broadcast stations shall be accorded primary status as a television broadcaster as long as the station continues to meet the minimum operating requirements for Class A status.
( d ) Licensees unable to continue to meet the minimum operating requirements for Class A television stations, or which elect to revert to low power television status, shall promptly notify the Commission, in writing, and request a change in status.
§ 51.232 Binder group management. ( a ) With the exception of loops on which a known disturber is deployed, the incumbent LEC shall be prohibited from designating, segregating or reserving particular loops or binder groups for use solely by any particular advanced services loop technology.
( b ) Any party seeking designation of a technology as a known disturber should file a petition for declaratory ruling with the Commission seeking such designation, pursuant to § 1.2 of this chapter.
[65 FR 1346, Jan. 10, 2000]
Exhibit 10.17 Salary Continuation Agreement - Second Amendment


    
      

      

    

    Exhibit
      10.17

    SECOND
      AMENDMENT TO THE 

    TIB
      BANK OF THE KEYS

    SALARY
      CONTINUATION AGREEMENT

    


    THIS
      SECOND AMENDMENT executed on this ________ day of __________________, 2006,
      by
      and between the TIB BANK OF THE KEYS, a Florida banking corporation located
      in
      Key Largo, Florida (the “Company”), and __________________ (the
“Executive”).

     

    On
      __________________, the Company and the Executive executed the TIB BANK OF
      THE
      KEYS SALARY CONTINUATION AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”).

    


    The
      undersigned hereby amends, in part, said Agreement for the purpose of 1)
      changing the percentage of the Benefit Basis for purposes of determining the
      Normal Retirement Benefit and Change of Control Benefit, and 2) changing the
      discount rate used in calculating the accrual balance from a fixed rate to
      a
      rate that can change periodically in accordance with Generally Accepted
      Accounting Principles.
      Therefore,

    


    Section
      2.1.1 of the Agreement shall be added to the Agreement as
      follows:

    


    2.1.1
      Amount of Benefit.
      The
      annual benefit under this Section 2.1 is an amount equal to forty three percent
      (43.0%) of the Benefit Basis.

    


    Section
      2.4.1 of the Agreement shall be added to the Agreement as
      follows:

    


    2.4.1
      Amount of Benefit.
      The
      annual benefit under this Section 2.4 is an amount equal to forty three percent
      (43.0%) of Inflated Compensation.

    


    EXHIBIT
      I of the Agreement is hereby amended to replace any reference to a fixed
      discount rate to now be at a rate determined periodically to be in conformity
      to
      Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

    


    Except
      as
      amended herein by this Second Amendment, the Agreement and the First Amendment
      remains in full force and effect.

    


    IN
      WITNESS OF THE ABOVE,
      the
      Executive and the Company have agreed to this Second Amendment.

     

     

    
      	 EXECUTIVE:	 	 	
              COMPANY:

              TIB
                BANK OF THE KEYS

               

            
	 	 	
               By  

            	 
	
              

            	 	
               

               

              Its
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

March 5, 2012 

h0227 

Order 

 

March 5, 2012 

144023 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 144023 

 COA: 305320 

PETER EDWARD LOUKAS, Macomb CC: 2009-004308-FC 

Defendant-Appellant. 2009-004603-FC 

____________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 16, 2011 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### § 60-30.3 Computation of time.

In computing any period of time under these rules or in an order issued hereunder, the time begins with the day following the act, event, or default, and includes the last day of the period, unless it is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday observed by the Federal Government in which event it includes the next business day.
No. 11-9018.

#### Jones-El *v.*Pollard et al.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Appendix H

List of Questions Addressed by Literature Review and 

Associated Evidence Tables

	List of questions addressed by literature review and associated evidence table

Question	Evidence Table

What are the risks and benefits of staged versus combined procedures?	10

What is the effect of cataract surgery on short-term IOP control in open angle glaucoma?	5

What is the effect of cataract surgery on long-term IOP control in open angle glaucoma?	4

What is the effect of glaucoma surgery on the development and progression of cataract?	6

What are the risks and benefits of mitomycin-C in combined cataract and glaucoma surgery?	7

What are the risks and benefits of 5-fluorouracil in combined cataract and glaucoma surgery?	8

What are the risks and benefits of trabeculectomy combined with cataract surgery compared with other types of glaucoma surgery combined with cataract surgery?	11

What are the risks and benefits of single-site versus two-site operations?	9

What are the risks and benefits of nuclear expression versus phacoemulsification in combined cataract and glaucoma surgery?	9
No. 11-5660.

#### Sanchez *v.*Massachusetts.

App. Ct. Mass. Certiorari denied.
§ 51.316 Conversion of unbundled network elements and services. ( a ) Upon request, an incumbent LEC shall convert a wholesale service, or group of wholesale services, to the equivalent unbundled network element, or combination of unbundled network elements, that is available to the requesting telecommunications carrier under section 251(c)(3) of the Act and this part.
( b ) An incumbent LEC shall perform any conversion from a wholesale service or group of wholesale services to an unbundled network element or combination of unbundled network elements without adversely affecting the service quality perceived by the requesting telecommunications carrier's end-user customer.
( c ) Except as agreed to by the parties, an incumbent LEC shall not impose any untariffed termination charges, or any disconnect fees, re-connect fees, or charges associated with establishing a service for the first time, in connection with any conversion between a wholesale service or group of wholesale services and an unbundled network element or combination of unbundled network elements.
[68 FR 52294, Sept. 2, 2003]
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation
by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-136511, 333-147288, 333-148197,
333-149503, 333-156915, 333-160529, 333-176180, and
333-190319 on Form S-8 of our report dated February 21, 2017, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of Electronics For
Imaging, Inc. and subsidiaries (the Company) and the effectiveness of the Companys internal control over financial reporting dated February 21, 2017, September 8, 2017 as to the effects of the material weaknesses
described in Managements Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting (Revised), (which report expresses an adverse opinion on the effectiveness of the Companys internal control over financial reporting because of the material
weaknesses), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2016.



|                         
|-------------------------
|/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
|San Jose,
California     
|September 8, 2017
Editorial Note on Part 74
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 74 appear at 64 FR 4055, Jan. 27, 1999.

§ 74.795 Low power TV and TV translator transmission system facilities. ( a ) A low power TV or TV translator station shall operate with a transmitter that is either certificated for licensing based on the following provisions or has been modified for digital operation pursuant to § 74.796.
( b ) The following requirements must be met before low power TV and TV translator transmitter will be certificated by the FCC: ( 1 ) The transmitter shall be designed to produce digital television signals that can be satisfactorily viewed on consumer receiving equipment based on the digital broadcast television transmission standard in § 73.682(d) of this chapter;
( 2 ) Emissions on frequencies outside the authorized channel, measured at the output terminals of the transmitter (including any filters that may be employed), shall meet the requirements of § 74.794, as applicable;
( 3 ) The transmitter shall be equipped to display the digital power output (*i.e.*, average power over a 6 MHz channel) and shall be designed to prevent the power output from exceeding the maximum rated power output under any condition;
( 4 ) When subjected to variations in ambient temperature between 0 and 40 degrees Centigrade and variations in power main voltage between 85% and 115% of the rated power supply voltage, the frequency stability of the local oscillator in the RF channel upconverter shall be maintained within 10 kHz of the nominal value;
( 5 ) The transmitter shall be equipped with suitable meters and jacks so that appropriate voltage and current measurements may be made while the transmitter is in operation; and
( 6 ) The apparatus must be equipped with automatic controls that will place it in a non-radiating condition when no signal is being received on the input channel, either due to absence of a transmitted signal or failure of the receiving portion of the facilities used for rebroadcasting the signal of another station. The automatic control may include a time delay feature to prevent interruptions caused by fading or other momentary failures of the incoming signal; and
( 7 ) Wiring, shielding, and construction shall be in accordance with accepted principles of good engineering practice.
( c ) The following additional requirements apply to digital heterodyne translators: ( 1 ) The maximum rated power output (digital average power over a 6 MHz channel) shall not exceed 30 watts for transmitters operating on channels 14-51 and 3 watts for transmitters operating on channels 2-13; and
( 2 ) The transmitter shall contain circuits which will maintain the digital average power output constant within 1 dB when the strength of the input signal is varied over a range of 30 dB.
( d ) Certification will be granted only upon a satisfactory showing that the transmitter is capable of meeting the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section, pursuant to the procedures described in § 74.750(e).
[69 FR 69336, Nov. 29, 2004, as amended at 86 FR 66214, Nov. 22, 2021; 87 FR 58206, Sept. 23, 2022; 88 FR 30671, May 12, 2023]
No. 11-5182.

#### Johnson *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Honorable Coke R. Stevenson, Jr. Opinion No. C-723

Administrator Texas Liquor Control Board Austin, Texas Re: Whether the Texas Liquor Control Board is authorized to issue a United States Bonded Liquor Export permitas provided for in sub-section (7b) of Section 15 of Article 1 of the Texas Liquor ControlAct (Article666-15, (7b) of Vernon's Penal Code) to a.qua.lified

applicant who desires to obtain Dear Mr. Stevenson: such a permit.

Your letterrequestingan opinion of this office reads as follows:

"In the case of Texas Liquor Control Board vs. AmmexWarehouse Compa.ny, 384 S.W.2d 768, it was held that Subsection (7b) of Section 15 of Article 1 of the Texas Liquor ControlAct (Article666-15, (7b),of Vernon's Texas Penal Code) is unconstitutional.The Supreme Court of Texas refused to review this decisionbecause of no reversible error. The Supreme Court of the United States refused to grant certiorari.
"Is the Texas Liquor Control Board authorized to issue a United States Bonded Liquor Export Permit as provided for in Subsection (7b)of Section 15 of Article 1 of the Texas Liquor Control Act (Article 666-15, (Tb),ofVernon's Texas Penal Code) to a qualified applicantwho desires to obtain such a permit?"
-3480-Honorable CokeR. Stevenson,Jr., Page 2 (C-723)

As you stated inyour opinion request,Article 666-15, (7b),of Vernon's Penal Code, has been held to violate the Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause of the Federal Constitution. Texas Liquor Control-Boardv. AmmexWarehouse Company, 384 S.W.2d 768. The laws of theUnited States supersedeor suspend the laws of a state insofar as they cover the same field and are applicable to matters over which Congresshas assumed exclilsive jurisdiction. Therefore, it is the opinion of this office that the Texas Liquor ControlBoard is not authorized to issue a United States Bonded Liquor Export Permit as provided for in Subsection (7b) of Section 15 of Article 1 of the Texas Liquor ControlAct because said statute has been held to violate the Federal Constitutionand is unconstitutionaland invalid. SUMMARY The Texas Liquor Control Board is not authorized to issuea United States Bonded Liquor Export Permit to a qualified applicantwho desires to obtain such a permit as Subsection (7b)of Section 15 of Article 666 of Vernon's Penal Code hasbeen declared unconstitutionaland invalid.
Yours very truly, WAGGONER CARR Attorney Genera,1

of Texas

AssistantAttorney General DHC/dt

-3481-Honorable Coke R. Stevenson,Jr., Page 3 (C-723)

APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE
W. V. Geppert, Chairman John Reeves Robert E. Owen Howard M. Fender Malcolm Quick
APPROVED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL By T. B. Wright

-3482-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF MARCH 31, 2000 AND CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND THE ACCOMPANYING
NOTES THERETO AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           4,838
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,237
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,283
<INVENTORY>                                        272
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,019
<PP&E>                                           3,948
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,419
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  94,083
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             3
<OTHER-SE>                                      53,494
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    94,083
<SALES>                                         36,114
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                36,114
<CGS>                                           10,970
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,970
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                31,054
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,531
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,466)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,412)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,054)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,054)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.12)


</TABLE>