alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Mohan SAINI, aka Mohan Singh, aka Mohan Saimi, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 99-71642.

I & NS No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 11, 2001 *.

Decided July 17, 2001.

*704Before RYMER and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI, Judge **.

*

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

**

 Honorable Jane A. Restani, United States Court of International Trade Judge, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Mohan Saini (Saini), a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upholding an immigration judge’s (IJ) decision denying Saini’s application to reopen his exclusion proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a) and we review the denial of the motion to reopen for an abuse of discretion. *See Garcia v. INS,*222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir.2000). We deny Saini’s petition.

Saini argues that his Fifth Amendment Due Process right to effective assistance of counsel was violated when he was not informed of a change in date of the hearing on his petition for asylum and withholding of deportation. Even if a right to effective assistance of counsel existed, nothing in the record suggests that Saini’s counsel was deficient. Because the INS properly served written notice of the hearing on Saini’s counsel, Saini is deemed to have also received notice. *See Garcia,*222 F.3d at 1209; *see also*8 C.F.R. § 292.5(a) (stating that whenever an alien is required to be given notice, such notice shall be given to alien’s attorney of record). Furthermore, Saini has failed to prove that he attempted to contact his counsel about his case at any point during his six years as a fugitive. There is no evidence that Saini would have even appeared on the continued date, as he did not appear on the date he knew the hearing was originally set for.

Saini has also failed to show that he could have presented evidence of past persecution, or a well-founded fear of future persecution, on account of a protected *705ground. *See INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992); *see also*INA § 208(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a) (listing factors that alien must establish by a preponderance of evidence to prove that he is statutorily eligible for asylum). Absent prejudice due to counsel’s errors, there would be no basis for reopening.

Although Saini asks for a remand because of new evidence of his marriage to a United States citizen during his six years as a fugitive, he offers no explanation why his marriage has anything to do with his request for re-opening and remanding on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel.

PETITION FOR REVIEW 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Jointpersonnel support.**
 
PDF | ePub
 
SuDoc Number:D 5.12:1-0/2011
Item Number:0315-C (online)
CGP systemNumber: 000952863
 
July 16, 2018
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 174-3 Filed 09/20/04 Page 1 of 1
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, DC 20549

FORM 10-Q

(Mark One)

/X/	Quarterly report under Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for the quarterly period ended September 30, 1993.

/ /	Transition report under Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act for the transition period from _____________ to ____________

Commission file number: 0-19258

BAYFIELD LOW INCOME HOUSING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)



|DELAWARE
(State or Other Jurisdiction of
Incorporation or Organization) | 11-3022123
(I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.)
|----------------------------------------------------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------

c/o MEGAN ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC.
1424 WEST CENTURY AVE., SUITE 102, BISMARCK, ND 58503
(Address of Principal Executive Offices)



(Registrant's Telephone Number, Including Area Code): (701) 223-2923

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant: (1) has reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act during the past 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports),
and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.	Yes / /		No /X/

APPLICABLE ONLY TO ISSUERS INVOLVED IN BANKRUPTCY

PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PRECEDING FIVE YEARS

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant filed all documents and reports required to be filed by Section 12, 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act after the distribution of securities under a plan confirmed by a court.	Yes /
/		No /X/

The information required by Parts I and II of this Form for the quarterly period ended June 30, 1993 is contained in Annual Report on Form 10-K of the registrant for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1994 and is incorporated by
reference to such Report.





SIGNATURES



Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.



|Dated: May 29 , 2000 | BAYFIELD LOW INCOME HOUSING 
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
By: MEGAN ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC.
Independent Manager
|-------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                     | By:/s/ Paul J. MaddockPaul J. Maddock, President
No. 60489.

#### Dunnington & Arnold, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 270276-K (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

The protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION

POWERNOTES (SM)

With Maturities of 9 months or more from Date of Issue

 

Registration No.  333-97047

Filed Pursuant to Rule 424 (b) (3)

PRICING SUPPLEMENT NO.  230				Trade Date: 10/31/02
(To Prospectus Supplement dated August 15, 2002 & 

  Prospectus dated August 8,2002)					Issue Date:  11/05/02
The Date of this Pricing Supplement November 1, 2002
SUBJECT TO REDEMPTION OR REPAYMENT

  CUSIP									Date and terms of redemption or

     or	Stated				             Interest			repayment (including any

Common	Interest		  Price to	 Discounts &         Payment	Survivors		applicable regular or special

  Code	Rate (1)	Maturity	Public (2)	Commissions       Frequency	  Option	Yes/No	record dates)

14911QKP5  3.00%	11/15/05	     100%	        0.575%                Semi Annually	     YES	    NO	

Principal						1st Payment	Day	

Amount		Proceeds		Dealer		      Date		Count

$4,205,000.00	$4,180,821.25	ABN AMRO Inc.	   05/15/03		30/360	
 

Original Issue Discount Note:					Total Amount of OID:

____  Yes	  X   No						N/A

 

 
- The interest rates on the PowerNotes (SM) may be changed by Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation from time to time, but any such change will not affect the interest rate on any PowerNotes (SM) offered prior to the effective date of the change.   Prior to the date of this Pricing Supplement, $9.899 mm principal amount of the PowerNotes (SM) were sold at interest rates then in effect.  Subsequent offerings of PowerNotes (SM) will be made under the Prospectus Supplement and Prospectus dated August 8, 2002.
- Expressed as a percentage of aggregate principal amount.  Actual Price to Public may be less, and will be determined by prevailing market prices at the time of purchase as set forth in the confirmation sheet.
No. 61039.

protest 273165-K (New York).

#### David Traum Co., Inc., and Cohen & Mann *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of tracing wheels, wholly or in chief value of steel, not plated with platinum, gold, or silver, and chiefly used in the household to transfer pattern markings to fabrics prior to sewing the fabrics, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No: 70124 

FILED 

MAY 0 9 2016 

Hardesty 

, J. 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

GARY WAYNE WALTERS, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

BRIAN E. WILLIAMS, SR., WARDEN; 

THE STATE OF NEVADA 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; 

NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS, OFFENDER 

MANAGEMENT DIVISION; AND CASE 

WORKER, UNIT (2), 

Respondents. 

ORDER DENYING PETITION 

This is a pro se petition for a writ of extraordinary relief 

challenging the computation of time served. We have reviewed the 

documents submitted in this matter, and without deciding upon the merits 

of any claims raised therein, we decline to exercise original jurisdiction in 

this matter. A challenge to the computation of time served must be raised 

in a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed in the district 

court in the first instance.' NRS 34.724(2)(c); NRS 34.738(1); NRAP 22. 

Accordingly, we 

ORDER the petition DENIED. 2 

Saitta 

, J. 

Pieku dAp ,

j. 

Pickering 

'We express no opinion as to whether petitioner could meet the 

procedural requirements of NRS chapter 34. 

2We also deny petitioner's motion for attorney general opinion 

N-1L14 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 
cc: Gary Wayne Walters 

Attorney General/Carson City 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) I947A 444to
From: jwoaboard333@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:38:47 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,

Joyce WRIGHT

Hendersonville, NC 28739
No. 69647.

#### Polk’s Model Craft Hobbies, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 63/20493(D) (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of miniature motors similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 66961, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
(R.D. 11515)

#### D. C. Andrews International *v.*United States

Entry No. 14199, etc.

(Dated April 24, 1968)

*Allerton deO. Tompkins*for the plaintiff.

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

Richardson, Judge:

The plaintiff seasonably moves herein for a “rehearing” of its prior motion to have the dismissal of the involved reappraisement appeals for lack of prosecution vacated and set aside, which prior motion terminated in an order of dismissal dated February 6,1968.

In the prior motion the court noted, among other things, that the subject appeals had not been filed by the consignee Gallagher & Ascher Co. or by an agent of said consignee, and that said appeals had been filed by plaintiff acting under and by virtue of a power of attorney from the ultimate consignee Acme Valve & Fittings Co. Additional averments of facts introduced into the record on the instant motion in the form of an affidavit executed by an officer of the said consignee dated February 16, 1968, and an affidavit executed by plaintiff’s attorney dated February 2, 1968, are to the effect, respectively, that plaintiff acted as agent for said consignee in filing the involved reappraisement appeals, and that plaintiff acted as agent for the said ultimate consignee in filing said appeals with the approval of said consignee.

In the court’s opinion the additional facts presented on “rehearing” do not confer jurisdiction upon this court to entertain an application for the affirmative relief sought by the plaintiff. The moving affidavits are at variance with each other on the matter of the source of plaintiff’s authority for the filing of the instant appeals. And the official papers in the record, to which reference was made in the court’s opinion on *841the prior motion, are corroborative of the fact that plaintiff filed the subject appeals as agent of the ultimate consignee — the posture which is assumed on the instant motion by plaintiff’s own attorney. Furthermore, its is difficult to understand that the consignee would have transmitted the notices of advance which gave rise to the occasion for instituting the subject reappraisement appeals, to the ultimate consignee for its action in the matter in lieu of or instead of to plaintiff, if in fact plaintiff was then the “agent” of said consignee for the purpose of filing the appeals herein. The action of the consignee in the circuitous routing of the notices of advance, as it were, is not consistent with the claimed principal-agent relationship between the consignee and the plaintiff.

Therefore, on the state of the instant record and in the exercise of a sound judicial discretion the court is of the opinion that the interests of justice are best served in this case by the court’s adherence to the disposition made herein on the prior motion.

The instant motion for rehearing is dismissed, and an order to this effect will be entered hereupon.
| (1) |   | such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the yearended March 31, 2019 fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended; and |
|-----|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2) |   | the information contained in such AnnualReport on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2015 fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of Centaurus Diamond Technologies,Inc. |
|-----|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: August 15, 2019 | /s/ ChasRadovich        |
|-----------------------|-------------------------|
|                  | ChasRadovich            |
|                  | Chief Executive Officer |
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350,****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906****OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

            In connection with the Quarterly Report of Material Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert M. Bernstein, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

            (2)        Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| Dated:  May 15, 2006 | /s/ Robert M. Bernstein                     |
|---------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                           | By:  Robert M. Bernstein                                                                                                                   |
|                           | Its:  Chief Financial Officer                                                                                                              |

----
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

PABLO ELIAS RAMOS-ABARCA, AKA 

Carlos Humberto Gonzales-Guzman, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 19-10013 

D.C. No. 2:18-cr-01280-JJT-1 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

John J. Tuchi, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 18, 2019**

Before: FARRIS, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. 

Pablo Elias Ramos-Abarca appeals from the district court’s judgment and 

challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 30-month sentence for reentry of a 

removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), Ramos-Abarca’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there 

* 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

SEP 25 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-10013 

are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. 

We have provided Ramos-Abarca the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental 

brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed. 

Ramos-Abarca waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Our 

independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 

(1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United 

States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss 

the appeal. See id. at 988. 

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED.
Silberstein
Ungar, PLLC CPAs and Business
Advisors


Phone (248) 203-0080


Fax (248)
281-0940


30600
Telegraph Road, Suite 2175


Bingham
Farms, MI 48025-4586


www.sucpas.com








October
12, 2010








CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





To the
Board of Directors of


DRC
Ventures, Inc.


South
Hempstead, New York





To Whom
It May Concern:





Silberstein
Ungar, PLLC hereby consents to the use in the Form 10-K, Annual Report under
Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, filed by DRC
Ventures, Inc. of our report dated October 8, 2010, relating to the financial
statements of DRC Ventures, Inc., a Nevada Corporation, as of and for the years
ending June 30, 2010 and 2009 and for the period from April 15, 2008 (inception)
to June 30, 2010.





Sincerely,





/s/ Silberstein Ungar,
PLLC





Silberstein
Ungar, PLLC





1
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 291 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                           May 8, 2007.
Whereas there are more than 870,000 sworn law enforcement officers throughout 
        the United States;
Whereas law enforcement officers are dedicated to serving this country, and 
        protecting this country and its citizens from harm;
Whereas law enforcement officers face dangers and threats to their personal 
        safety each day;
Whereas more than 56,000 law enforcement officers are assaulted every year;
Whereas every 53 hours, a law enforcement officer in the United States is killed 
        in the line of duty;
Whereas 143 law enforcement officers were killed in the line of duty in 2006, 12 
        fewer than the 155 officers killed in 2005;
Whereas Public Law 87-726 requests that the President issue proclamations 
        designating May 15th of each year as National Peace Officers Memorial 
        Day; and
Whereas section 7(m) of title 4, United States Code, requires that the flag of 
        the United States be flown at half-staff on Peace Officers Memorial Day: 
        Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved,  That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the goals and ideals of Peace Officers Memorial Day to 
        honor Federal, State, and local peace officers killed or disabled in the 
        line of duty; and
            (2) calls upon the people of the United States to observe such a day 
        with appropriate ceremonies and respect.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Before the First Division,

February 19, 1959

No. 62760.

#### W. T. Grant Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 36593-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of miniature metal figures, such as dogs, horses, and other animals, carts, wheelbarrows, and men, women, and boys, shown as handling different tools and objects and engaged in different enterprises, the same in all material respects as the merchandise the subject of *United States*v. *F. W. Woolworth Co.*(28 C.C.P.A. 196, C.A.D. 145) and that the items in question are composed in chief value of lead, not plated with platinum, gold, or silver, or colored with gold lacquer. On the agreed facts and following the cited decision, the articles in question were held properly classifiable under the provision in paragraph 397, as modified, for articles, not specially provided for, composed in chief value of lead, not plated with platinum, gold, or silver, or colored with gold lacquer, dutiable as follows: (1) Those entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, prior to January 1, 1948, at 3 cents per pound, but not less than 22)4 percent nor more than 45 percent ad valorem, under paragraph 397, as modified by T.D. 49753; (2) those entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, between January 1, 1948, and June 6, 1951, at 2 cents per pound, but not less than 15 percent nor more than 45 percent ad valorem, under said paragraph, as modified by T.D. 51802; and (3) those entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, subsequent to June 6, 1951, at 2 cents perpound, but not less than 15 percent nor more than 30 percent ad valorem, under said paragraph, as modified by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 52739), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T.D. 52820).
No. 68898.

#### Samaurice Import Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 64/8568 (New York).

Opinion by

La whence, J.

(In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of stethoscopes similar in -all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 68126, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.