alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Nelson Eduardo CAMPOS-MENA, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 00-71193.

INS No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 11, 2001.*

Decided June 25, 2001.

*596Before O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Nelson Eduardo Campos-Mena, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of his application for asylum and withholding of deportation under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a) and 1253(h). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § llOSa(a).1 We deny the petition.

We review factual determinations, including whether a petitioner is eligible for asylum, under the substantial evidence standard. *Acewicz v. INS,*984 F.2d 1056, 1061 (9th Cir.1993). We must uphold the BIA’s decision unless the evidence compels a contrary result. *INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992).

Because the record does not compel the conclusion that Campos-Mena was persecuted or has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of actual or imputed political opinion, the BIA’s conclusion that he did not establish eligibility for asylum is supported by substantial evidence. *See id.*at 482-83 (holding that guerrillas’ forced recruitment is not persecution on account of political opinion unless the guerrillas acted “because of’ the applicant's political opinion).

It follows that Campos-Mena failed to satisfy the more stringent standard required to establish eligibility for withhold-mg of deportation. *See Ghaly v. INS,*58 F.3d 1425, 1429 (9th Cir.1995).

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 may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

1

. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 ("HRIRA") repealed 8 U.S.C. § 1105a and replaced it with a new judicial review provision codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1252. See IIRIRA § 306(c)(1), Pub. L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 (Sept. 30, 1996), *as amended by*Act of Oct. 11, 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-302, 110 Stat. 3656. However, because the new review provision does not apply to petitioners whose deportation proceedings commenced before April 1, 1997, this court continues to have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a. See IIRIRA § 309(c)(1).
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 36 (Friday, February 23, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 8153]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3104]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy


Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive Patent License; Hanson 
Technologies, Inc.

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy hereby gives notice of its intent 
to grant to Hanson Technologies, Inc., a revocable, nonassignable, 
exclusive license in the field of detection of pathogens, toxins, 
prions, and allergens in food for human consumption, and detection of 
pathogens, toxins, prions, and allergens in food processing for human 
consumption, including wash liquids and waste products of said process 
in the United States and certain foreign countries, the Government-
owned invention described in U.S. Patent No. 6,192,168: REFLECTIVELY 
COATED OPTICAL WAVEGUIDE AND FLUIDICS CELL INTEGRATION, Navy Case No. 
79,631 and any continuations, divisionals, or re-issues thereof.

DATES: Anyone wishing to object to the grant of this license must file 
written objections along with supporting evidence, if any, not later 
than March 12, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Written objections are to be filed with the Naval Research 
Laboratory, Code 1004, 4555 Overlook Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20375-
5320.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rita Manak, Head, Technology Transfer 
Office, NRL Code 1004, 4555 Overlook Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20375-
5320, telephone 202-767-3083. Due to U.S. Postal delays, please fax 
202-404-7920, e-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#12607b66733c7f737c7379527c607e3c7c73646b3c7f7b7e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="63110a17024d0e020d0208230d110f4d0d02151a4d0e0a0f">[email protected]</span></a> or use courier delivery 
to expedite response.

    (Authority: 35 U.S.C. 207, 37 CFR Part 404.)

    Dated: 15 February 2007.
M.A. Harvison,
Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, 
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
 [FR Doc. E7-3104 Filed 2-22-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Larry Joseph Thomas,

Petitioner, No. Civ. S 04-0733 MCE PAN P

vs. Order

A K Scribner, et al.,

Respondents.

-oOoNovember 21, 2005, petitioner filed notices of denial of law

library access, which the court construes as requests to extend

time to oppose respondent’s motion to dismiss. Good cause

appearing, petitioner’s requests are granted. Time is extended

to January 30, 2006. No further extensions will be granted

absent a showing of manifest injustice. So ordered. 

Dated: December 20, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00733-MCE -DAD Document 44 Filed 12/21/05 Page 1 of 1
No. 65464.

#### Edward R. B. Haldan and H. B. Thomas & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 59/10056, etc. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of golf caddy carts similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 64052, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                          JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                            JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                      179588 
<SECURITIES>                                382560 
<RECEIVABLES>                                60000 
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            689134 
<PP&E>                                      193664 
<DEPRECIATION>                               17657 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              877641 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        17024 
<BONDS>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    854426 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (1634)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                877641 
<SALES>                                      76500 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            201658 
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               503668 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            3457 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (305467)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (305467)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                               (305467)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (.04)
        

</TABLE>
**United States Standard General Ledger (USSGL) – Issues Submission template**

**Date Submitted:**

**Entity Submitted by:**

**TAFS:**

**IRC Representative:**

**Point of Contact Name:**

**Point of contact email:**

**Phone Number:**

**Background:**

**Scope of Issue:  *Government-Wide or Agency Specific***

**Instructions**:  Please provide details under each applicable section below.  Please add as many rows as necessary, within each section, to allow the necessary space to provide complete details.  If certain sections do not apply to the issue you are submitting, then you can either mark N/A or leave blank.  Please ensure that the issue has been communicated with your IRC representative and that the IRC representative is copied on the email when submitted.

**Section I – Chart of Accounts**

Description of Problem:

Relevant References:

Proposed Solution:

**Section II – Accounts and Definitions**

Description of Problem:

Relevant References:

Proposed Solution:

**Section III – Account Transactions**

Description of Problem:

Relevant References:

Proposed Solution:

**Section IV – Account Attributes**

Description of Problem:

Relevant References:

Proposed Solution:

**Section V – Crosswalks to Standard External Reports**

Description of Problem:

Relevant References:

Proposed Solution:

**Section VI – Crosswalks to Reclassified Statements**

Description of Problem:

Relevant References:

Proposed Solution:

**Section VII – GTAS Validations and Edits**

Description of Problem:

Relevant References:

Proposed Solution:
<TABLE>
                        
                                                           EXHIBIT 12

                         INDIANA GAS COMPANY, INC.
                        AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
                                    
            COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                      (In Thousands, Except Ratios)

                                              Fiscal Year Ended September 30
                                     1997(1)    1996       1995       1994        1993
<S>                                 <C>       <C>        <C>         <C>        <C>
Earnings:
 Net income                         $13,478   $38,630    $32,109     $34,596    $28,534
   Income taxes                       7,147    22,568     18,630      17,977     16,030
   Fixed charges (see below)         17,728    16,844     16,395      16,986     17,556
Total adjusted earnings             $38,353   $78,042    $67,134     $69,559    $62,120


Fixed charges:
 Total interest expense             $16,774   $15,907    $15,530     $16,037    $16,640
 Interest component of rents            954       937        865         949        916
Total fixed charges                 $17,728   $16,844    $16,395     $16,986    $17,556

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges      2.2       4.6        4.1         4.1        3.5


(1)Reflects the recording of restructuring costs during the fourth quarter of fiscal
   1997 (see Item 8, Note 2).  Indiana Gas' ratio of earnings to fixed charges for
   1997 before restructuring costs was 4.4.

</TABLE>
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT M ANISH KUM AR , Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 12-74144 Age n c y No. A089-127-173 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d

M ay 13, 2014 ** B e fore : C LIFTON, B EA, a nd WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s. M anish Kum ar, a

native and c i tiz e n

of India , pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s’ (“ B IA” ) orde r de ny ing his motion to re o pe n re m ova l proc e e d ings. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re v ie w for a buse o f disc re tion the de n i a l of a m o tion to re ope n, Toufighi v . Muk ase y , 538 F.3d 

# FIL ED MAY19 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).988, 992 (9th C ir. 2008), a nd re vie w de novo c la im s of due proc e ss viola tions, Liu v . Holde r , 640 F.3d 918, 930 (9th C ir. 2011). W e de ny the pe tition for re vie w. The B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion in deny ing Kum ar’ s m otion to re ope n be c a use it wa s untim e ly , se e 8 C .F.R . § 1003.2(c )(2), and Kum a r fa ile d to e sta blish m ate ria l ly c ha nge d c irc um sta

nc e s in India

so a s to qua lify

for the re gula

tory e xc e ption to the

tim e lim ita

tions for m otions to re ope n, s e e 8 C .F.R . § 1003.2(c )(3); s e ealso Toufighi , 538 F.3d a t 996 (se tting forth re quire m e nts for pre v a i ling on a

m otion to re ope n ba se d on c h a n ge d c ountry

c onditions). W e re

je c t Kum ar’ s c o nte ntion tha

t the B IA fa ile d

to c o nside r his e vide nc e or a rgum e nts. C ontra ry to Kum a r’ s c onte ntions, the

B IA did not othe

rwise a b use its disc re tion in de ny ing his motion. Se eToufighi , 538 F.3d a t 992 (“ This C o urt de fe rs to the B oa rd’ s e xe rc ise of disc re tion unle ss it a c te d a rbitra rily , irrat iona lly

or c ontra ry to la w.” ). In light of our c onc lusions, Kumar’ s due proc e s s c la im fa ils. S e e Lata v . IN S , 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th C ir. 2000) (re quiring e rror to pre va il on a due proc e s s c la im ). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 2 - 7 4 1 4 4 2
Exhibit 23 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 No. 33-20291 and No. 33-2830 relating to the Management Incentive Compensation Plan of The Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc. (the “Company”); RegistrationStatements on Form S-8 No. 33-5352, No. 33-21605, No. 333-4747, and No. 333-23603 relating to the 1986 Stock Incentive Plan, the 1986 United Kingdom Stock Option Plan and the 1996 Stock Incentive Plan of the Company; RegistrationStatements on Form S-8 No. 33-10087 and No. 33-25555 relating to the Long-Term Performance Incentive Plan of the Company; Registration Statement on Form S-8 No. 333-28029 relating to The Interpublic Outside Directors’ StockIncentive Plan of the Company; Registration Statement on Form S-8 No. 333-42675 relating to the 1997 Performance Incentive Plan of the Company; Amendment No. 1 on Form S-8 to Registration Statement on Form S-4 No. 333-59254 relatingto the True North Communications Inc. Stock Option Plan and the Bozell, Jacobs, Kenyon & Eckhardt, Inc. Stock Option Plan; Registration Statement on Form S-8 No. 333-89896 relating to the 2002 Performance Incentive Plan of the Company;Registration Statement on Form S-8 No. 333-115923 relating to the 2004 Performance Incentive Plan of the Company; Registration Statement on Form S-8 No. 333-115924 relating to the Non-Management Directors’ Stock Incentive Plan of theCompany; Registration Statement on Form S-8 No. 333-134498 relating to the 2006 Performance Incentive Plan of the Company; Registration Statement on Form S-8 No. 333-134497, relating to the Employee Stock Purchase Plan (2006) of theCompany; Registration Statement on Form S-4 No. 333-142196 relating to the exchange of Floating Rate Notes due 2010 of the Company; Registration Statement on Form S-3 No. 333-142197 relating to the 4.25% Convertible Senior Notes due 2023of the Company; Registration Statement on Form S-3 No. 333-142198 relating to the 5 1/4% Series B Cumulative Convertible Perpetual Preferred Stock of the Company; Registration Statement on Form S-3 No. 333-148642 relating to the 4.75%Convertible Senior Notes due 2023 of The Interpublic Group of Companies Inc. (the “Company”) of our report dated February 27, 2009 relating to the consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control overfinancial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K. 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

New York, New York 

February 27, 2009
No. 54619.

#### Theo. L. Stern & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 114724-K, etc, (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of shell strands similar in all material respects to those the *260subject of *United States*v. *Colonial Bead, Co., Inc.*(36 C. C. P. A. 78, C. A. D. 401), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 59496.

protest 170823-K (Bridgeport).

#### Fairfield Wool Company, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of waste sheepskin scrap similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Fairfield Wool Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 199, C. D. 1653), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
# sec5_snc_2022

&L&"Arial"&10&BBulletin No. 2022-12	&"Arial,Bold"&10V SNC - &P	&R&"Arial"&10&BJune 2022
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MARTHA STEELE

v.

HCI DIRECT

:

: CIVIL ACTION

:

: NO. 02-4347

:

ORDER

AND NOW, this 10th day of March, 2005, it is ORDERED that the status conference

scheduled for March 17, 2005 is continued at the request of Plaintiff for medical reasons until

Monday, April 18, 2005 at 4:30 p.m.

BY THE COURT:

S/Bruce W. Kauffman 

BRUCE W. KAUFFMAN, J.

Case 2:02-cv-04347-BWK Document 46 Filed 03/11/2005 Page 1 of 1
Número Identificador

RES2023______________

ESTADO LIBRE ASOCIADO DE PUERTO RICO

TRIBUNAL DE APELACIONES

PANEL VIII

El PUEBLO DE 

PUERTO RICO

Parte Peticionaria

v.

LUIS IRANIO

FERRER IRIZARRY

Parte Recurrida

KLCE202301282

Certiorari,

procedente del Tribunal 

de Primera Instancia, 

Sala Superior de 

Mayagüez

Caso Núm.: 

I1VP202300827-828

Sobre: 

Art. 404 (a) Ley 4 

(2 casos)

Panel integrado por su presidente, el Juez Rivera Colón, el Juez Monge 

Gómez y el Juez Cruz Hiraldo.

Monge Gómez, Juez Ponente 

RESOLUCIÓN

En San Juan, Puerto Rico, a 27 de noviembre de 2023.

Compareció ante este Tribunal la parte peticionaria, el Pueblo de 

Puerto Rico (en adelante, “Peticionario”), por conducto de la Oficina del 

Procurador General, mediante recurso de certiorari presentado el 15 de 

noviembre de 2023. Nos solicitó la revocación de la Resolución dictada por 

el Tribunal de Primera Instancia, Sala Superior de Mayagüez (en adelante, 

el “TPI”), el 20 de septiembre de 2023, notificada y archivada en autos el 27 

de septiembre de 2023. Mediante el referido dictamen, el foro recurrido

paralizó los procesos al amparo de la Regla 240 de las de Procedimiento 

Criminal, 34 LPRA Ap. II, R. 240. 

Estando el trámite apelativo pendiente, compareció nuevamente la 

Oficina del Procurador General mediante “Aviso de Desistimiento 

Conforme la Regla 83(B)(5)”. Expuso que recibió certificación suscrita por 

el Subdirector de Servicios Clínicos del Complejo Correccional de Ponce, 

en donde permanecía confinado el Sr. Luis I. Ferrer Irizarry, quien le informó 

que este último había fallecido el 9 de noviembre de 2023. En vista de lo 

anterior, solicitó el desistimiento voluntario del recurso de epígrafe. 
KLCE202301282 2

Evaluada la referida solicitud de desistimiento y los documentos que 

obran en los autos, se declara “Ha Lugar” y en virtud de las disposiciones 

de la Regla 83 (A) del Reglamento del Tribunal de Apelaciones, se ordena 

el cierre y archivo definitivo del caso, sin especial imposición de costas, 

gastos u honorarios de abogado. 4 LPRA Ap. XXII-B, R. 83 (A). 

Lo acordó y manda el Tribunal, y lo certifica la Secretaria del Tribunal 

de Apelaciones.

Lcda. Lilia M. Oquendo Solís

Secretaria del Tribunal de Apelaciones
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

LAWRENCE CAMPBELL,

Petitioner

v.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (CITY OF PHILADELPHIA),

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 357 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 13th day of February, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                      9,021
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                               34,249
<ALLOWANCES>                                4,026
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            42,887
<PP&E>                                      37,119
<DEPRECIATION>                              15,232
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              150,980
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       23,416
<BONDS>                                     159,628
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                    2
<OTHER-SE>                                  (42,116)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                150,980
<SALES>                                     105,591
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            112,424
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               101,627
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            14,713
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            6,832
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          8,402
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (18,850)
<INCOME-TAX>                                (802)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (18,048)
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             (1,038)
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                (19,086)
<EPS-BASIC>                               (64.48)
<EPS-DILUTED>                               0

</TABLE>
No. 59995.

#### New York Merchandise Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 268000-K (New York).

*463Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of glass bead Christmas tree ornaments similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Walco Bead Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 62, C. D. 1445], the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
JOSEPH E. KENNEY

,

Petitioner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY

SAFETY AND MOTOR

VEHICLES

,

Respondent.

___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 1127

Opinion filed July 17, 2014.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari

.

David M. Robbins and Susan Z. Cohen, of Epstein & Robbins, Jacksonville , for

Petitioner.

Stephen D. Hurm, General Counsel, and Dam aris Reynolds, Assistant General

Counsel, Pinellas Park , for Respondent.

P ER CURIAM.

DENIED.

VAN NORTWICK, CLARK, and SWANSON, JJ., CONCUR.