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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARCO MONTOYA-HERNANDEZ, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 16-70800 

Agency No. A095-697-941 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 17, 2022**

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

Marco Montoya-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions pro se for 

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to 

reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We 

review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi 

* 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

MAY 26 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-70800 

v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We review de novo questions of law. 

Bhattarai v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1037, 1042 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny in part and 

dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Montoya-Hernandez’s 

motion to reopen as untimely, where it was filed more than nine months after the 

order of removal became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and where MontoyaHernandez did not establish changed country conditions in Peru that are material to 

his claim for relief, see id. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii) (material evidence of changed 

circumstances is required to qualify for an exception to the time and numerical 

limitations for motions to reopen); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987-90 (evidence must 

be “qualitatively different” to warrant reopening).

To the extent Montoya-Hernandez contends he is eligible for cancellation of 

removal, we lack jurisdiction to consider this contention because it was not raised 

in his motion to reopen to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 

(9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the 

agency). Additionally, to the extent Montoya-Hernandez challenges the BIA’s 

underlying dismissal order, we lack jurisdiction to review that decision because it 

was issued on April 2, 2015, and Montoya-Hernandez did not file this petition for 
3 16-70800 

review until March 24, 2016.1 See Singh v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 880, 882 (9th Cir. 

2016) (“A petition for review must be filed not later than 30 days after the date of 

the final order of removal. . . . This deadline is mandatory and jurisdictional.” 

(internal citations and quotation marks omitted)).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

1 This court denied Montoya-Hernandez’s timely petition for review of the BIA’s 

underlying dismissal order on December 14, 2015. See Montoya-Hernandez v.

Lynch, 624 F. App’x 566 (9th Cir. 2015).
No. 50070.

#### Protests 87012-K, etc., of J. Berlage Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Exhibit
12.1
  Computation
    of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
  Six Months Ended


Years Ended December 31,June 30, 2009


2008


2007


2006


2005


2004$ (in thousands)Fixed charges(1):Total interest expense

$
241,900


$
699,043


$
864,239


$
621,666


$
199,805


$
87,819Interest capitalized










357



414



932



Interest portion of rental expense


1,588



1,994



1,697



1,327



1,244



1,494Total fixed charges

$
243,488


$
701,037


$
866,293


$
623,407


$
201,981


$
89,313Earnings:Net (loss) income before noncontrolling interests and income
    taxes

$
(313,135
)

$
(407,912
)

$
251,790


$
335,808


$
255,202


$
196,655Fixed charges


243,488



701,037



866,293



623,407



201,981



89,313Less: Interest capitalized










(357
)


(414
)


(932
)


Total earnings before fixed charges

$
(69,647
)

$
293,125


$
1,117,726


$
958,801


$
456,251


$
285,968Ratio of earnings to fixed charges(2)


(0.3
)x


0.4
x


1.3
x


1.5
x


2.3
x


3.2
x     (1)
    
    Excludes interest related to the application of FIN 48.(2)
    
    The earnings for the six months ended June 30, 2009 and for
    year ended December 31, 2008 were inadequate to cover fixed
    charges. The coverage deficiency for total fixed charges for the
    six months ended June 30, 2009 and for the year ended
    December 31, 2008 were $313.1 million and
    $407.9 million, respectively.
Exhibit 32(2)

The following certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the registrant specifically incorporates it by reference.

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 on Form 10-Q of Magellan Midstream Holdings, L.P. (the
Partnership) for the quarter ending June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John D. Chandler, Chief Financial Officer of Magellan Midstream Holdings GP,
LLC, the General Partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 Partnership.



|                                         
|-----------------------------------------
|/s/ John D. Chandler                     
|John D. Chandler, Chief Financial Officer
|Date: August 7, 2006                     

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Partnership
and will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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

1

 The federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. In the absence of a federal statute

specifically granting subject matter jurisdiction, this court may not proceed on plaintiffs’ causes

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JIM LABER, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-04-1427 FCD KJM PS

vs.

ROBERT COTTELL, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

A further status conference was held in this matter on May 25, 2005 before the

undersigned. Plaintiffs appeared in propria persona. No appearance was made for defendants. 

Upon consideration of the court file in this action, and good cause appearing therefor, THE

COURT ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:

1. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiffs shall file with the court

a statement setting forth the basis of the court’s subject matter jurisdiction, with appropriate

citations to the statutory authority, including the Title and Section of the United States Code

conferring subject matter jurisdiction over the claims raised in the amended complaint. See Fed.

R. Civ. P. 8(a).1

Case 2:04-cv-01427-FCD-CKD Document 19 Filed 05/27/05 Page 1 of 2
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

of action. Moreover, plaintiffs’ amended complaint cites to several sections of Title 26, which

pertain to tax enforcement. The United States Attorney, not private citizens, is charged with

enforcing the tax code. At heart, plaintiffs’ complaint appears to revolve around alleged

fraudulent business dealings on the part of defendants. As such, it appears plaintiffs’ complaint

is appropriately venued in state court, not the federal court.

2

2. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiffs shall serve summons in

compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. Failure to comply with this order shall result

in a recommendation this action be dismissed.

DATED: May 26, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

006

laber2.oas

Case 2:04-cv-01427-FCD-CKD Document 19 Filed 05/27/05 Page 2 of 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.                  

###### Department of Veterans Affairs

# AGENCY:

Department of Veterans Affairs. 

# ACTION:

Notice of Intent to Enter into an Enhanced-Use Lease. 

# SUMMARY:

The Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) intends to enter into an enhanced-use lease (EUL) for the Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center, Brecksville, Ohio. Under the terms of the EUL, the selected lessee/developer would provide the Department with fair consideration in the form of discounted services needed at its Cleveland (Wade Park) campus. Such services would include administrative space and parking services. Additionally, the selected lessee/developer would make domiciliary services available to veterans in a private facility located within operational proximity of Wade Park. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gregg Buckley, Office of Asset Enterprise Management (004B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 273-5518. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Title 38 U.S.C. 8161,                     *et seq.*                     specifically provides that the Secretary may enter into an enhanced-use lease if he determines that the implementation of a business plan proposed by the Under Secretary for Health for applying the consideration under such a lease to the provision of medical care and services would result in a demonstrable improvement of services to eligible veterans in the geographic service-delivery area within which the property is located. This project meets this requirement.                 

Approved: February 27, 2007. 

R. James Nicholson, 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

 [FR Doc. E7-4014 Filed 3-6-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
No. 47888.

#### Protests 960729-G, etc., of Louis Marbe Cohn et al. (New York.)

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the articles in question are not bleached, dyed, colored, or stained, and not blocked or trimmed, they were held dutiable at 25 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1504 (b) (1) as claimed. Abstract 47291 followed.
Case No. 15,046.

#### UNITED STATES v. ELLIS.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 125.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

June Term, 1803.

Penalty—Statute—Indictment.

If a statute prescribes a particular mode of enforcing payment of a penalty, it must be pursued. and indictment will not lie.

Indictment for gaming. Verdict, guilty. Motion in arrest of judgment, that the act of assembly of Virginia, which gives the penalty, provides that it shall be recovered before a single magistrate in the same manner as small debts. It contains no prohibitory words, but says only, if any one-shall play, he shall pay the penalty of twenty dollars—and does not say that the penalty-may be recovered by indictment.

Mr. Mason, for the United States,

cited the following authorities: Rev. Code, p. 112, §§• 24-26, which speaks of indictments for misdemeanors. Section 28. The court may order the clerk to issue summons, or other process. Section 37. Where the penalty does-not excéed twenty dollars, it may be sued, for by petition, as in the case of other small debts. Page 106, § 1. Grand jury in district court to present all misdemeanors. Section 2. The like in county courts. Page 107, § 5, the same as section 2. Section 6. Where the penalty in the district court does not exceed twenty dollars, the court may hear without indictment; so, in county courts where it does not exceed five dollars. By Rev. Code, pp. 183-185, § 13, the act is to be given in charge to the grand jury. Act 1797, c. 2, §§ 7, 8.

Mr. Swann, for defendant,

cited the gaming act (Rev. Code, p. 185), which prescribes a specific mode of recovering the penalty, and contains no prohibitory clause. 2 Hale, P. C. 171; Stubbs, Crown Cir. Comp. 95; U. S. v. Simms (Sup. Ct. U. S., Feb. 1803) 1 Cranch [5 U. S.] 252; 2 Burrows, 803.

1

 [Reported by Hon. William Cranch, Chief Judge.]

THE COURT

arrested the judgment on the authority of Simm’s Case, supra.

KILTY, Chief Judge, contra, thinking these cases differed from that.
No. 59577.

protest 245548-K (San Francisco).

#### Pamco, Incorporated, and Mattoon & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of silk squares similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *The Specialty House, Inc., Bryant & Heffernan, Inc., et al.*(42 C. C. P. A. 136, C. A. D. 585), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. R68/14.

reappraisement R66/27532 (San Francisco).

No. R68/15.

reappraisements R67/17371 and R67/17372 (New York).

#### Frank P. Dow Co., Inc., a/c Sutton Creations, Inc. *v.*United States, Lollytogs, Ltd. *v.*United States,

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues involved herein are the same in all material respects as those in Lollytogs, *Ltd.*v. *United States*(55 Cust. Ct. 608, Reap. Dec. 11073), the court found and held that export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (b), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise (wearing apparel) and that such value was the appraised unit value, net packed, less the commission of Swedish Trading Co., Ltd., of Hong Kong as indicated on the invoices.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4523 

To amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to expand 

community eligibility, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 12, 2024 

Mr. FETTERMAN (for himself and Mr. CASEY) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

A BILL 

To amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch 

Act to expand community eligibility, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Nutrition Red Tape 

5 Reduction Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXPANDING COMMUNITY ELIGIBILITY. 

7 (a) THRESHOLD.—Section 11(a)(1)(F) of the Rich8 ard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 

9 1759a(a)(1)(F)) is amended by striking clause (viii) and 

10 inserting the following: 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 4523 IS

1 ‘‘(viii) THRESHOLD.—For each school 

2 year beginning on or after July 1, 2024, 

3 the threshold shall be not more than 25 

4 percent.’’. 

5 (b) APPLICABILITY.—The amendment made by sub6 section (a) shall apply to a local educational agency with 

7 respect to a school year beginning on or after July 1, 

8 2024, for which the local educational agency elects to re9 ceive special assistance payments under subparagraph (F) 

10 of section 11(a)(1) of the Richard B. Russell National 

11 School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1759a(a)(1)). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-12-0000516

31-JUL-2013

07:47 AM
**Exhibit 23**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLICACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference inRegistration Statement Nos. 333-111744, 333-14591, and 333-56048 of KimballInternational, Inc. on Form S-8 of our report dated August 30, 2010, relating tothe consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule ofKimball International, Inc. and the effectiveness ofKimball International, Inc.'s internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report onForm 10-K of Kimball International, Inc. for the year ended June 30, 2010.

 

 

|                                                          |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| /s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP                                 |   |
|                                                               |   |
| DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLPIndianapolis, IndianaAugust 30, 2010 |   |
Case No. 6,740a.

#### In re HOUTMAN.

[Nowhere reported; opinion not now accessible.]
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

O.Z. MARTIN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2234 FCD KJM P

vs.

EDWARD ALAMEIDA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has requested the appointment of counsel. The United States Supreme

Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent

prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In

certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991);

Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). In the present case, the court

does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of

counsel will therefore be denied.

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02234-FCD-KJM Document 25 Filed 05/01/06 Page 1 of 2
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

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s March 31, 2006 motion

for the appointment of counsel is denied.

DATED: May 1, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

/mp

mart2234.31

Case 2:04-cv-02234-FCD-KJM Document 25 Filed 05/01/06 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7040

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JIMMIE LEE SWANN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Richard L. Voorhees, Chief

District Judge. (CR-89-140, CA-95-9-1-V)

Submitted: September 11, 1997 Decided: September 18, 1997

Before RUSSELL, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jimmie Lee Swann, Appellant Pro Se. Jerry Wayne Miller, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his

motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994) (current version at 28

U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997)). We have reviewed the

record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. Swann, Nos. CR-89-140; CA-95-9-1-V

(W.D.N.C. Apr. 24, 1996). See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. ___, 1997

WL 338568 (U.S. June 23, 1997) (No. 96-6298). 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
September 14, 1956

Reap. Dec. 8655.

#### *Bunge Corporation*v. *United States.*

Entered at New York, N. Y. [Not published.] Motion by plaintiff.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4640 

To strengthen trafficking victim assistance grant funding. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 9, 2024 

Mr. OSSOFF (for himself and Mrs. BLACKBURN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To strengthen trafficking victim assistance grant funding. 

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 ‘‘Supporting Victims 

5 of Human Trafficking Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. GRANTS TO ASSIST VICTIMS OF A SEVERE FORM OF 

7 TRAFFICKING. 

8 Section 107(b)(2) of the Trafficking Victims Protec9 tion Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7105(b)(2)) is amended— 

10 (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘human’’ 

11 and inserting ‘‘a severe form of’’; 

12 (2) in subparagraph (B)— 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4640 IS

1 (A) in the matter preceding clause (i), by 

2 striking ‘‘shall’’ and insert ‘‘may’’; 

3 (B) in clause (i), by striking ‘‘three per4 cent’’ and inserting ‘‘ up to 7 percent’’; 

5 (C) in clause (ii)— 

6 (i) by striking ‘‘5 percent’’ and insert7 ing ‘‘up to 10 percent’’; and 

8 (ii) by inserting ‘‘and strengthening 

9 program administration and budgeting’’ 

10 after ‘‘activities’’; and 

11 (D) in clause (iii), by striking ‘‘one per12 cent’’ and inserting ‘‘up to 1 percent’’; 

13 (3) in subparagraph (C), strike ‘‘75 percent’’ 

14 and insert ‘‘95 percent’’; and 

15 (4) by adding at the end the following: 

16 ‘‘(E) DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITED.—No 

17 person in the United States may, on the basis 

18 of actual or perceived race, color, religion, na19 tional origin, sex, gender identity, sexual ori20 entation, or disability, be excluded from partici21 pation in, denied the benefits of, subjected to 

22 discrimination under, or denied employment in 

23 connection with, any program or activity funded 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4640 IS

1 in whole or in part with funds made available 

2 under this paragraph.’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEITH TOWNS, 

NO. CIV. S-04-1855 FCD/PAN

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT AND

DISPOSITION

AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE CO., et al., 

Defendants.

____________________________________/

Pursuant to the representations of the plaintiff in the above action the court has

determined that this case has settled as to defendant North American Title only. 

In accordance with the provisions of Local Rule 160, dispositional documents are to be

filed on or before March 6, 2006. Any dates as to this defendant not previously vacated are now

VACATED.

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER MAY BE GROUNDS FOR THE

IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS ON ANY AND ALL COUNSEL AS WELL AS ANY

PARTY OR PARTIES WHO CAUSE NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THIS ORDER.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 1, 2006

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01855-KJM-EFB Document 23 Filed 02/01/06 Page 1 of 1