alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE ASCENCION

- CASTRO, AKA Jose Acesion

- Castro, AKA Christian Ronald Clegg, Petitioner,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 19

- 71400 Agency No. A202

- 014

- 952

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2021 * *
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ , Circuit Judges.
Jose Ascen c ion

- Castro, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to remand and his motion to terminate, and dismissing his appe al from an immigration

* 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

DEC 20 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 71400

judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his motion for a continuance. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. W e review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
continue , Sandoval

- Luna v. Mukasey , 526 F.3d 1243, 124 6 (9th Cir. 2008) , the denial of a motion to remand, Movsisian v. Ashcroft , 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir. 2005), and the denial of a motion to terminate, Dominguez v. Barr , 975 F.3d 725, 734 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for review.
The IJ did not abuse its discretion in denying Ascencion

- Castro’s motion for
a continuance. See Sandoval

- Luna , 526 F.3d at 1247 ( denial of continuance was
not an abuse of discretion where the record did not establish petitioner’s present eligibility for relief); see also Matter of Sanchez Sosa , 25 I. & N. Dec. 807, 812

- 15 (BIA 2012) (discussing how a movant may establish prima facie eligibility for a U
visa such that good cause for a continuance might be established ). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ascencion

- Castro’s motion
to remand where Ascencion

- Castro may pursue a U visa with a removal order in place. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.14(c)(1)(ii).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying administrative closure. See
Gonzalez

- Caraveo v. Sessions , 882 F.3d 885, 891

- 93 (9th Cir. 2018) (holding the

non - exhaustive list of factors in Matter of Avetisyan , 25 I. & N. Dec. 688 (BIA 2012), provides a stand ard for reviewing administrative closure decisions).3 19

- 71400

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to terminate,
where Ascencion

- Castro’s contentions regarding his notice to appear are foreclosed by Aguilar Fermin v. Barr , 958 F.3d 887, 895 (9 th Cir. 2020) (“the lack of time, date, and place in the NTA sent to [petitioner] did not deprive the immigration court of jurisdiction over her case”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
No. 54846.

#### American Meshed Fur Co. *v.*United States,

protests 134346-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

The protests were dismissed.
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1573/2006

of 19 October 2006         

fixing the rates of refunds applicable to certain products from the sugar sector exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the market in the sugar sector (1), and in particular Article 33(2)(a) and (4) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The rates of the refunds applicable to the basic products listed in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1043/2005 and in Article 1(1) and in point (1) of Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 318/2006, and exported in the form of goods listed in Annex VII to Regulation (EC) No 318/2006, shall be fixed as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 20 October 2006.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 19 October 2006.

For the Commission

Günter VERHEUGEN            

Vice-President

----

(1)OJ L 58, 28.2.2006, p. 1.

(2)OJ L 172, 5.7.2005, p. 24. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 544/2006 (OJ L 94, 1.4.2006, p. 24).

----

ANNEX

Rates of refunds applicable from 20 October 2006 to certain products from the sugar sector exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty (1)

----

(1)  The rates set out in this Annex are not applicable to exports to Bulgaria, with effect from 1 October 2004, to Romania with effect from 1 December 2005, and to the goods listed in Tables I and II to Protocol No 2 to the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation of 22 July 1972 exported to the Swiss Confederation or to the Principality of Liechtenstein with effect from 1 February 2005.

----
Before the Third Division,

January 9, 1941

No. 45144.

#### Petition 6073-R of Samuel Yaroslowitz (New York).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

It appeared from the testimony that this petitioner for a period of years had imported these prayer shawls from Poland, all of which prior importations had been of less value than $100 and were therefore not accompanied by a consular invoice. When the shipment in question arrived it was found that the value was over $100 and a consular invoice was required. On appraisement the value was found to be $333.76 and the petitioner appealed to reappraisement. Prom the record and the testimony of the witness, which was not contradicted, the court was satisfied that the petitioner was entirely innocent of any attempt to undervalue his goods on entry. As the entire record showed no willful or intended violation on the part of this petitioner, the petition was granted.
# C_2016078EN.01001101.xml

| 29.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/11

---

Order of the Vice-President of the Court of 18 December 2015 — Court of Justice of the European Union v Gascogne Sack Deutschland GmbH, Groupe Gascogne SA, supported by: European Commission

(Case C-125/15 P) (1)

1

(2016/C 078/14)

Language of the case: French

The Vice-President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 155, 11.5.2015.

1

---
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

          - [Docket No. RP04-98-002] 

Take notice that on January 5, 2007, Columbia Gulf Transmission Company (Columbia Gulf) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following pro forma tariff sheets: 

Second Revised Sheet No. 235 

First Revised Sheet No. 236

Original Sheet No. 237

Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the proceeding. 

                    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at                     *http://www.ferc.gov.*                     Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.                 

                    This filing is accessible on-line at                     *http://www.ferc.gov,*                     using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail                     *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,*                     or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.                 

*Protest Date:*                     5 p.m. Eastern Time on January 26, 2007.                 

Magalie R. Salas, 

Secretary.

 [FR Doc. E7-785 Filed 1-19-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
| (1) | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;                and |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2) | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of UAL                Corporation. |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  /s/              Glenn F. Tilton      |   |
|---------------------------------------------|--------|
| Glenn                F. Tilton              |   |
| Chairman,                President and      |   |
| Chief                Executive Officer      |   |
|                                        |   |
|                                        |   |
|  /s/              Frederic F. Brace    |   |
| Frederic                F. Brace            |   |
| Executive                Vice President and |   |
| Chief                Financial Officer      |   |
|                                        |   |
|                                        |   |
No. 07-15-00128-CV

Le Nguyen

Appellant

v.

Elena Lopez, Individually and as of

Representative of and on behalf of

The Estate of Jeanette Lopez and

Caristina and Miguel Lerma,

Individually and on behalf of Bernice

Lerma, a minor, and on behalf of all

known heirs

Appellee §

§

§

§ From the 17th District Court

of Tarrant County

September 22, 2015

Opinion Per Curiam

J U D G M E N T

It is hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed that this appeal be abated and

removed from this Court’s docket.

o O o
Before the First Division,

February 4, 1942

No. 46916.

#### Protest 56665-K of Strauss-Eckardt Co., Inc. (Boston).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In view of the stipulation of counsel and by virtue of T. D. 50277 (1) the tablecloths and napkins in question were held dutiable at 30 percent under paragraph 911 (b) as claimed.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsOn seasonal variations of Mars' gravitational fieldA great quantity of CO2 is exchanged between the Martian atmosphere and polar caps in the course of a Martian year. This exchange occurs in seasonal cycles: CO2 condenses to form the polar caps in winter and sublimes into the atmosphere in summer. The mass involved is about 25% of the total mass of the Martian atmosphere. This paper studies the effects of the CO2 mass redistribution on the Mars' gravitational field. Two mechanisms are examined: (1) the waxing and waning of solid CO2 in the polar caps, and (2) the geographical distribution of gaseous CO2 in the atmosphere. The maximum changes produced by (1) in the low-degree zonal J sub l harmonics in the Mars gravitational field are found to be as much as 7.5 x 10 to the-9 power for J sub 2 (corresponding to 1.1 cm change in the geoid), and about half as much for J sub 3. The effect of (2) on some most prominent low-degree harmonics (for l =1-3) in the effective topography (defined as the departure of the true topography from the geoid) is also evaluated. Their magnitudes are large by Earth standards. Whether they can be observed by the upcoming Mars Observer is still uncertain.Document ID19870007300Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsChao, B. Fong*(NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, MD, United States)*Rubincam, David P.*(NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, MD, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 5, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 1987Subject CategoryLunar And Planetary ExplorationReport/Patent NumberNASA-TM-87807NAS 1.15:87807REPT-87B0134Accession Number87N16733Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19870007300.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
Case No. 8,061.

#### LANE et al. v. GOBBOLD.

[39 Hunt, Mer. Mag. 332.]

Circuit Court, D. South Carolina.

1858.

Notes — What is Promissory Note — Special Agreement — Pleading at Law — Declaration on Special Agreement.

[A paper writing containing a promise to do anything more than to pay a certain sum of money at a certain time and at all events is not a promissory note, but a special agreement, and must be declared on as such.]

[Action by W. T. Lane & Co. against Asa Gobbold on an alleged promissory note.]

MAGRATH, District Judge,

presiding.

This was an action against one of two makers of what ptxrported to be a promissory note, whereby defendant promised to pay $2,-274.27 for value received, with current rate of exchange on New York, and all expenses of collection in case of suit, at the agency of the Mechanics’ Bank of Cheraw, South Carolina, and Marion, South Carolina. Defendant’s counsel contended that this was no promissory note; that, if an agreement, the consideration must be set out in the declaration, and all the facts established by proof; and so it was held by his honor that a paper writing containing a promise to do anything more than to pay a certain sum of money at a certain time, and at all* events, is not a promissory note, but is a special agreement, and must be declared on as such.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NOS. WR-81,806-03 & WR-81,806-04

EX PARTE JEENA ROBERTS, Applicant

ON APPLICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NOS. 2010-429,389-B & 2010-429,390-B

IN THE 140TH DISTRICT COURT FROM LUBBOCK COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court these applications for writs of habeas corpus. Ex

parte Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of intoxication

assault and intoxication manslaughter and sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment and fifteen years’

imprisonment, respectively. 

Applicant contends, among other things, that she was deprived her right to file an appeal. 

The trial court has signed findings of fact stating that Applicant did not waive her right to appeal

rulings on pre-trial motions as part of the plea agreement and, therefore, was denied her right to file
2

an appeal.

The trial court has recommended that Applicant be granted relief. We find that Applicant

is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time appeal of the judgments of convictions in Cause

No. 2010-429,389 and Cause No. 2010-429,390 from the 140th Judicial District Court of Lubbock

County. 

Applicant is ordered returned to that time at which she may give a written notice of appeal

so that she may then, with the aid of counsel, obtain a meaningful appeal. All time limits shall be

calculated as if the sentence had been imposed on the date on which the mandate of this Court issues. 

We hold that, should Applicant desire to prosecute an appeal, she must take affirmative steps to file

a written notice of appeal in the trial court within 30 days after the mandate of this Court issues.

Applicant’s remaining claims are dismissed. See Ex parte Torres, 943 S.W.2d 469 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1997).

Delivered: June 10, 2015

Do Not Publish
No. 39026.

#### Protests 265198-G, etc., of Kresge Dept. Store et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

On the agreed facts atomizers, jars, match boxes, nut bowls, pepper bottles, salt caps, and vases were held dutiable at 40 percent under paragraph 399, Tariff Act of 1922. Bookends were held dutiable at 40 percent under paragraph 339, Tariff Act of 1930.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0000100122
<NAME> TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    1,908,454
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                     64,017
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         225,796
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       304,761
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                  70,132
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,573,160
<COMMON>                                       640,516
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                          (411,670)
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 228,846
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         1,183,198
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                    1,725
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                    869,649
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                14,989
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 274,753
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                2,573,160
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      160,636
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                           (2,559)
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     140,146
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     137,587
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         23,049
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               3,353
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  26,402
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        27,722
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,320)
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  (1,320)
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                             0
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                             566
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 140 (Thursday, July 22, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 42680]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-18132]

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

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Sunshine Act Notice

AGENCY: United States Commission on Civil Rights.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

DATES: Date and Time: Friday, July 30, 2010; 11:30 a.m. e.d.t.
    Place: Via Teleconference. Public Dial In: 1-800-597-7623, 
Conference ID  89174163.

Meeting Agenda

    This meeting is open to the public, except where noted otherwise.

I. Approval of Agenda.
II. Program Planning.
     New Black Panther Party Enforcement Project.
     Consideration of Discovery Plan and Project Outline for 
Report on Sex Discrimination in Liberal Arts College Admissions.
     Timeline for Commissioner Statements and Rebuttals to HBCU 
and STEM Reports.
     Consideration of Vacancies on the Election Assistance 
Commission Board of Advisors.
III. Management and Operations.
     Submission of FY 2012 Budget Estimate to the Office of 
Management and Budget.
IV. Approval of March 12, April 16, May 14, May 28, June 11, June 25, 
and July 16 Meeting Minutes.
V. Adjourn.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact Person for Further 
Information: Lenore Ostrowsky, Acting Chief, Public Affairs Unit (202) 
376-8591. TDD: (202) 376-8116.
    Persons with a disability requiring special services, such as an 
interpreter for the hearing impaired, should contact Pamela Dunston at 
least seven days prior to the meeting at (202) 376-8105. TDD: (202) 
376-8116.

    Dated: July 20, 2010.
David Blackwood,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2010-18132 Filed 7-20-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
```
# C_2014106EN.01000101.xml

| 9.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 106/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.7141 — AGCO Corporation/Basic Element/Russian JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2014/C 106/01

On 18 March 2014, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32014M7141. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32014M7141. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---