alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

The Honorable Roger T. Benitez, United States District Judge for the **

Southern District of California, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CONCEPCION CARRILLO,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER JR., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-73777

B.I.A. No. A076-804-563

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted January 11, 2011

Seattle, Washington

Before: GRABER and M. SMITH, JR., Circuit Judges, and BENITEZ, District ** 

 Judge.

Petitioner Concepcion Carrillo, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision upholding the immigration judge’s

denial of her request for a waiver of inadmissibility and for adjustment of status to

that of legal permanent resident.

FILED

JUN 21 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

On January 30, 1998, Petitioner was stopped at the United States-Mexico

border and removed pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225. Petitioner later entered the

United States without admission or parole in February or March of 1998. She has

not departed from the United States since that time. 

Because Petitioner is illegally present in the United States after having been

previously removed, she is inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(II). She

argues, however, that she is entitled to a waiver of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1182(a)(9)(C)(ii). That section provides an exception to inadmissibility if 10

years have passed since the alien’s last departure and if the alien obtains the

Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security’s consent to reapply for

admission before reentering the United States. 

In light of our decision in Carrillo de Palacios v. Holder, No. 09-72059, filed

this date, Petitioner is not entitled to a waiver of inadmissibility—nunc pro tunc or

otherwise—because, although 10 years have elapsed since she last departed the

United States, she did not remain outside the United States for at least 10 years

before reentry. We therefore deny the petition.

Petition DENIED.
EXHIBIT 32.2



inTEST CORPORATION



In connection with the Quarterly Report of inTEST Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Hugh T. Regan, Jr., Secretary, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
Date:	July 17, 2009

/s/ Hugh T. Regan, Jr.
Hugh T. Regan, Jr.
Secretary, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
From: pswartz3@woh.rr.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:26:21 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Ronald Swartz

Englewood, OH 45322
(R. D. 11422)

#### Parsons & Whittemore, Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided December 12, 1967)

*Sharp, Solter i& Hutchison*for the plaintiff.

*Edwin L. Weisl, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Bao, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

_ IT IS HEEEBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the undersigned, subject to the approval of the Court:

1. • That the subject merchandise consists of hardboard exported from Sweden as to which the Secretary of the Treasury issued a finding of dumping, published in 89 TD 197, TD 53567, made pursuant to the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C., 160, et seq.).

2. That pursuant to Section 168 of said Antidumping Act, the appraiser reported the purchase price (Sec. 162) and the foreign market value (Sec. 164) as to the merchandise listed on Schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof.

3. That pursuant to Sections 500 and 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, the appraiser appraised all of the merchandise in the appeals for appraisement enumerated on Schedule A for regular duty purposes.

4. That the plaintiff duly filed appeals for reappraisement as to the values referred to in the above paragraphs Nos. 2 and 3.

5. That at the times relevant herein the purchase price and the foreign market value under the said Antidumping Act are as specified in the aforesaid Schedule A attached hereto. ,

■ 6. That as to all other items of merchandise not identified on Schedule A, the appraiser’s reports of purchase price and of foreign market value are correct.

7. That the appraiser’s findings of value under the provisions of Section 402 of the. Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, are correct.

8. That said appeals are submitted for decision upon this stipulation and said Schedule A.

*803Upon the agreed facts, I find foreign market value, as defined in section 164 of the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C. § 164), for the merchandise described in schedule A, annexed to this decision and made a part hereof, and the purchase price thereof, within section 162 of said act (19 U.S.C. § 162), to be as indicated in said schedule. As to all other items of merchandise not identified in schedule A, I find the foreign market values and purchase prices to be as reported by the appraiser. In all other respects, the values of all merchandise are as returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Exhibit 32.1


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



In connection with the Quarterly Report of VTEX Energy,  Inc. (the "Company") on
Form  10-QSB/A  Amendment  No. 1 for the period  ending  October  31,  2004 (the
"Report"),  I, Grant G. Emms, Chief Executive  Officer of the Company,  certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

2)   The information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
     respects,  the Company's  financial  position and results of operations for
     the periods presented.



/s/Grant G. Emms
----------------
Grant G. Emms
Chief Executive Officer
December 20, 2005
No. 39, Misc.

Petitioner *pro se.*

*Stanley Mosk,*Attorney General of California, *Doris H. Maier,*Assistant Attorney General, and *Raymond M. Momboisse,*Deputy Attorney General, for respondents.

#### Halcomb *v.*McGee, Corrections Director, et al.

Supreme Court of California. Certiorari denied.
From: theblessedgospelisforall@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:56:44 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth Ward

Lexington, MO 64067
From: maggie.lentz@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:52:23 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Margaret Woods

Benzonia, MI 49616
Before the First Division,

March 4, 1963

No. 67480.

#### Roure Dupont, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 62/6269 (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issue herein is the same as that involved in *United States*v. *Dodge*& *Olcott, Inc.*(47 CCPA 100, C.A.D. 737), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
**Exhibit 10.7**

**AMENDMENT NO. 2 TOCLASS A SENIOR SECURED CONVERTIBLE DEBENTURE**

          The following provisions are hereby incorporated into, and are hereby made a part of, that certain Class A Senior Secured Convertible Debenture dated September 23, 2003, and that certain Amendment to Class A Senior Secured Convertible Debenture dated October 27, 2006 (collectively, the “Debenture”) between Material Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) and Palisades Capital, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company (the “Holder”) and such provisions are effective retroactively to the date of the Debenture (the “Effective Date”).  All capitalized terms in this Amendment to Debenture, to the extent not otherwise defined herein, shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Debenture.				1.       The Maturity Date shall be extended to December 31, 2010.				2.       The following language is added to the requirement that Robert M. Bernstein execute a Stockholder Lockup Agreement, and Holder shall consent to such language being included, in substantially the same form, in an amendment to such Lockup Agreement:

> 
Notwithstanding the foregoing, after the Company has successfully raised at least $2,500,000 in financing, Robert M. Bernstein may sell up to $2,500,000 worth of his shares in an arm’s length transaction with a third-party, at a discount of no more than 50% of the lowest closing bid price for the ten prior trading days, without restriction and without the necessity of the buyer thereof becoming subject to this Lockup Agreement.

3.       All other provisions of the Debenture remain unchanged.			          **IN WITNESS WHEREOF,** the Parties have caused this Amendment to Debenture to be duly executed and delivered as of October 10, 2007.**COMPANY:                                                               HOLDER:****MATERIAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,**                   **PALISADES CAPITAL, LLC,**a Delaware corporation                                                a Nevada limited liability company/s/ Robert M. Bernstein                                                 /s/ Reid Breitman                                              By:  Robert M. Bernstein                                              By:  Reid Breitman			Its:  Chief Executive Officer                                           Its:  President

----
From: mmsterner@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:40:56 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

margaret sterner

Woodbridge, VA 22192
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1691
CHAD E. KAKERT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DARDEN RESTAURANTS, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-297-7) Submitted: July 10, 2003 Decided: July 15, 2003 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Chad E. Kakert, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Chad E. Kakert appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action against Darden Restaurants for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Kakert v. Darden Restaurants, Inc. , No. CA-03-297-7 (W.D. Va. May 16, 2003). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
From: tdveenstra@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:42:43 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Tim Veenstra

Holland, MI 49423
Exhibit 12.1
 NII HOLDINGS, INC.
STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS
TO FIXED CHARGES
(dollars in thousands)
 Three Months EndedJune 30,2008
    
    
    2007Income from continuing operations before income tax
    
    $
    213,826
    
    
    $
    126,169Add:Fixed charges
    
    
    56,357
    
    
    
    40,598Amortization of capitalized interest
    
    
    1,598
    
    
    
    1,343Less:Interest capitalized
    
    
    2,452
    
    
    
    1,484Equity in (losses) gains of unconsolidated affiliates
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Losses attributable to minority interests
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Earnings as adjusted
    
    $
    269,329
    
    
    $
    166,626Fixed charges:Interest expense on indebtedness (including
amortization of
debt expense and discount)
    
    $
    40,238
    
    
    $
    29,653Interest capitalized
    
    
    2,452
    
    
    
    1,484Portion of rent expense representative of interest (30%)
    
    
    13,667
    
    
    
    9,461Fixed charges
    
    $
    56,357
    
    
    $
    40,598Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    4.78
    
    
    
    4.10Deficiency of earnings to cover fixed charges
    
    $
    
    
    
    $
    