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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARTIN SALMALANCA

- PADILLA, AKA Martin Salamanca

- Padilla,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 14

- 73453

Agency No. A073

- 130

- 374

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 13, 2018 **

Before: LEAVY , M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Martin Salamanca

- Padilla, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

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

reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We

* 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

MAR 19 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 14

- 73453

review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and review de novo

questions of law. Bonilla v. Lynch

, 840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016)

. We deny the

petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Salamanca

- Padilla’s motion

to reopen so that he could pursue an I

- 601A provisional unlawful presence waiver

,

where Salamanca

- Padilla failed to establish prima facie eligibility for that waiver.

See Lopez

- Vasquez v. Holder , 706 F.3d 1072, 1080 (9th Cir. 2013) ; 8 C.F.R.

§ 212.7(e)(3), (4) (2013).

Salamanca

- Padilla’s contention that the BIA failed to recognize that it had

authority to reopen as a matter of discretion is belied by the BIA’s statement that it

declined to exercise its discretion to reopen sua sponte under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a).

Cf. Sin gh v. Holder , 771 F.3d 647, 653 (9th Cir. 2014) (the BIA’s denial of a

motion to reopen on jurisdictional grounds was legal error, and thus an abuse of

discretion, because the BIA had authority to reopen under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a)).

Sal amanca

- Padilla’s mot ion to stay removal (Docket Entry No. 27) is denied

as moot. The temporary stay of removal will expire upon issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
1 This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please see

2 Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please

3 also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other

4 deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the

5 filing date.

6 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

7 STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

8 Plaintiff-Appellee,

9 v. NO. 31,406

10 CIPRIANO BOTELLO,

11 Defendant-Appellant.

12 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY

13 Lisa C. Schultz, District Judge

14 Gary K. King, Attorney General

15 Santa Fe, NM

16 for Appellee

17 Cipriano Botello

18 Hobbs, NM

19 Pro Se Appellant

20 MEMORANDUM OPINION

21 FRY, Judge.

22 Defendant Cipriano Botello appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for

23 reconsideration of sentence. This Court filed a notice of proposed summary
2

1 disposition on September 21, 2011, proposing to dismiss the appeal because

2 Defendant’s notice of appeal was filed one day late. Defendant filed a memorandum

3 in opposition on October 3, 2011, which we have given due consideration.

4 Unpersuaded, we dismiss Defendant’s appeal.

5 Rule 12-201(A)(2) NMRA requires that a notice of appeal shall be filed “within

6 thirty (30) days after the judgment or order appealed from is filed in the district court

7 clerk’s office.” The New Mexico Supreme Court has held that timely filing a notice

8 of appeal is a mandatory precondition to this Court’s exercise of jurisdiction. Trujillo

9 v. Serrano, 117 N.M. 273, 277-78, 871 P.2d 369, 373-74 (1994).

10 Our review of the record shows that the order denying Defendant’s motion to

11 reconsider sentence was filed on May 10, 2011. [RP 361] Defendant, acting pro se,

12 filed his notice of appeal thirty-one days later on Friday, June 10, 2011. [RP 363]

13 Accordingly, the mandatory precondition has not been met, nor has Defendant pointed

14 out any unusual circumstances, such as late filing caused by an error of the court, that

15 might provide a sufficient reason to overlook the lateness. Id.

16 For the reasons stated above, we dismiss this appeal.

17 IT IS SO ORDERED.
3

1 

2 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge

3 WE CONCUR:

4 

5 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge

6 

7 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge
Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

      Pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsection (a)
      and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each
      of the undersigned officers of Canal Capital Corporation and Subsidiaries,
      a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify that:

      The  Quarterly  Report of Form 10-Q for the three months ended January 31,
      2006 (the "Form 10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the requirements
      of  section  13(a)  or 15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934 and
      information  contained in the Form 10-Q fairly  presents,  in all material
      respects,  the  financial  condition  and  results  of  operations  of the
      Company.


Date: March 14, 2006                         /S/ Michael E. Schultz
                                             -----------------------
                                             Chief Executive Officer


Date: March 14, 2006                         /S/ Reginald Schauder
                                             -----------------------
                                             Chief Financial Officer


                                       43
(V. D. 62)

#### Camera Specialty Company, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 10266.

(Decided January 17, 1958)

*Norman Katz*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This matter is before me on remand from classification proceedings decided by the third division of this court in *Camera Specialty Company, Inc.*v. *United States,*39 Cust. Ct. 328, Abstract 60940, and it has been submitted for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between counsel for plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, concerning the merchandise referred to below, as follows:

1. Said merchandise consists of cameras and leather carrying cases which, pursuant to the principal [sic] set forth in the case of John P. Herber & Co., Inc. v. United States, C. D. 1519, are subject to appraisment [sic] separately according to the value of each class of articles.

2. At the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, the price at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States, was at the unit price of $10.15 per camera and $1.50 per leather carrying case, in United States currency, less the proportionate deductions from said unit prices and additions thereto for non dutiable and dutiable charges as invoiced. The foreign value of such or similar merchandise is no higher.

3. The instant stipulation and remand is limited to that merchandise contained in cases marked GW 610 to GW 629 entered under cover of Warehouse Entry No. 10266 dated October 14, 1953.

4. The instant remand may be deemed submitted for decision upon this stipulation.

*622On the agreed facts, I find export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for appraisement of the cameras and leather carrying cases in the cases marked GW 610 to GW 629, on the invoice covered by the entry involved herein, as hereinabove identified, and that such statutory value is $10.15 per camera and $1.50 per leather carrying case, United States currency, less the proportionate deductions from said unit prices and additions thereto for nondutiable and dutiable charges, as invoiced, and I so hold. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Back Injuries Associated With Lifting

              																																																			Schaffer, Herbert					 and 	United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics.								*Back Injuries Associated With Lifting : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 2144*.															Washington, D.C: 										U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 												August 1982,												https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/5213,				accessed on September 25, 2024.										    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
Category Primary Estimate Low Estimate

High 

Estimate

Year 

Dollar

Discount 

Rate

Period 

Covered

Benefits

$25,000.00 $61,000.00 2008 7% 2015

$27,000.00 $67,000.00 2008 3% 2015

7%

3%

Qualitative

Costs

$1,490 2008 7% 2015

$1,490 2008 3% 2015

7%

3%

Qualitative

Transfers

7%

3%

From/To From: To:

7%

3%

From/To From: To:

Effects

State, Local, 

and/or Tribal 

Government These impact results are shown in the UMRA analysis and the RIA.

Small Business Impact results are available in the RIA. 

Wages

Growth

No estimates available regarding changes in wages. 

Federal 

Annualized 

Monetized 

($millions/year) None estimated. 

No estimates available regarding changes in growth. 

Other Annualized 

Monetized 

($millions/year) None estimated. 

Significant impacts Panel Done. 

Impacts to government-owned entities 

Annualized 

Monetized 

($millions/year)

Annualized 

Quantified 

Annualized 

Monetized 

($millions/year)

Annualized 

Quantified 

Notes

This benefits range reflects two primary estimates (Pope et al. for the lower, and Laden et al. for the higher). Monetized benefits for this 

NESHAP reflect the direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor emission reductions. There are no monetized benefits available for reductions in HAPs 

or CO, ecosystem effects, or visibility impairment. Analysis year is the year of full rule implementation (2014). Results and methodology are 

provided in the RIA. 

Estimates Units

Decrease in headaches, eye irritation, and pnemonia due to reduced HAP exposure
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

PATRICK J. KELLY,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 408 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Unpublished

Memorandum and Order of the Superior Court at No. 2162 EDA
2019 entered on June 29, 2020, affirming the Order of the Carbon County Court of Common Pleas at

No. CP

- 13

- CR

- 0000551

- 2013 entered on June 27, 2019

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 22 nd day of January, 2021, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

GRANTED. We VACATE the decision of the Superior Court and REMAND for the

Superior Court to apply Commonwealth v. Lacombe , 234 A.3d 602 (Pa. 2020)

.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES/OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the report of Medical Solutions Management Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-QSB/A for the fiscal year ended April 1, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned Brian Lesperance, President and Treasurer (principal executive officer and acting
principal accounting and finance officer) of the Company hereby certify, pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, that this Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 or other document authenticating,
acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906 Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



|                       |  |                                                                           
|---------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: November 2, 2007 |  | /s/    BRIAN
LESPERANCE                                                   
|                       |  | Brian Lesperance                                                          
|                       |  | President and Treasurer                                                   
|                       |  | (principal executive officer and principal accounting and finance officer)
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION OF 10-K REPORT

OF

NAVIGANT INTERNATIONAL, INC.

FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 26, 2004



1. The
undersigned are the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of Navigant International, Inc. (the Company). This Certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This Certification
accompanies the 10-K Report of the Company for the year ended December 26, 2004.



2. We certify that such 10-K Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such 10-K Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



This Certification is executed as of October 7, 2005.



By:

/s/ Edward S. AdamsEdward S. Adams Chief Executive Officer




By:

/s/ Robert C. GriffithRobert C. Griffith Chief Financial Officer




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Navigant International, Inc. and will be retained by Navigant International, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          27,189
<SECURITIES>                                   981,352
<RECEIVABLES>                                  238,038
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,263,193
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    500,000
<COMMON>                                       530,110
<OTHER-SE>                                          21
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,263,193
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                58,485
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      800
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    57,685
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1406 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1406

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To designate the United States courthouse under construction at 510 
  19th Street, Bakersfield, California, as the Myron Donovan Crocker 
                       United States Courthouse.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. MYRON DONOVAN CROCKER UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE.

    (a) Designation.--The United States courthouse under construction, 
as of the date of enactment of this Act, at 510 19th Street, 
Bakersfield, California, shall be known and designated as the ``Myron 
Donovan Crocker United States Courthouse''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the United States 
courthouse referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a 
reference to the ``Myron Donovan Crocker United States Courthouse''.

            Passed the Senate July 26, 2011.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
112th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 1406

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To designate the United States courthouse under construction at 510 
  19th Street, Bakersfield, California, as the Myron Donovan Crocker 
                       United States Courthouse.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1997
<CASH>                                             741
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,582
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (785)
<INVENTORY>                                      4,098
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,876
<PP&E>                                          86,950
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (33,286)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  99,260
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,643
<BONDS>                                         20,130
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,280
<OTHER-SE>                                      25,059
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    99,260
<SALES>                                         73,553
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                73,553
<CGS>                                           44,280
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   66,894
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                22,614
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,483
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,966
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,039
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,444
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,444
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.04
        

</TABLE>
Summary of Guaranty Contract
of Maximum Amount ( the “Contract”) Entered into by and between BAK
International (Tianjin) Limited (the “Guarantor”) and Shenzhen Caitian Branch,
Bank of Communications (the “Creditor”) on April 26, 2009





Main
contents:


Ø     Guaranty
Contract number: 4431702009B100000000;


Ø     Bak
International (Tianjin) Limited undertakes to assume joint and several
liabilities for Shenzhen BAK Battery Co., Ltd (the “Obligor”)’s indebtedness
towards Bank of Communications under the Comprehensive Credit Facility
Agreement of Maximum Amount (reference no.: 4431702009C000000000) from
March 25, 2009 to March 25, 2010, and the maximum amount secured
is RMB 200 million.


Ø     Guaranty Responsibility: The guaranty
under this Contract shall be guaranty with joint and several liabilities. The
guarantor is obligated to pay off the debt in the event the obligor is unable to
pay off the debt (including the creditor declares the debt becomes mature in
advance to its original expiry date due to default of the obligor or the
guarantor).


Ø     Scope ofGuaranty:The guaranty shall cover
all of the loan principal, interest, penalty interest, breach of contract
compensation, damages, undertaking fee and all the expenses such as litigation
cost, lawyer’s fee, notification cost and public notice cost etc. which is
incurred to the Creditor in realizing its creditor’s right.


Ø     Guaranty period: The
guaranty period is from the effective date of this Contract to two years after
the expiry of the term of the Credit Facility Agreement and relevant agreement
entered into under the Credit Facility Agreement.





Headlines
of the articles omitted:


Ø     Termination
and explanation


Ø     Payment
on demand


Ø     Declaration
and guaranty of the Guarantor


Ø     Obligations
of the Guarantor


Ø     Agreement
of Bank Sequestrate Deposits


Ø     Disputation
settlement


Ø     Supplement
articles
IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS

HANDDOWN LIST OF OCTOBER 20 , 2015

WESTERN DISTRICT

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 84.16(b)

AND ISSUED PER CURIAM



### ------------------------------------------------------------------

None

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 30.25(b)

AND ISSUED PER CURIAM



### ---------------------------------------------------------------- --

WD 77505 State of Missouri vs. Vincent D Gulley
No. 53810.

protest 147003-K (New York).

#### “21” Brands, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial the case was submitted upon the record including the collector’s letter of transmittal. For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.