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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MALCOLM BURBANK, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, Secretary,

Department of Homeland Security; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-35760

D.C. No. 2:14-cv-00292-RMP

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Washington

Rosanna Malouf Peterson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 5, 2017** 

San Francisco, California

Before: GRABER and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and ROSENTHAL,*** Chief

District Judge.

 

FILED

JAN 9 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

***

 The Honorable Lee H. Rosenthal, Chief United States District Judge for

the Southern District of Texas, sitting by designation.
Plaintiff Malcolm Burbank appeals the district court’s decision dismissing

this action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). We vacate the district

court’s order, remand, and instruct the district court to dismiss the action for lack

of jurisdiction.

1. We lack—and the district court lacked—jurisdiction to review Plaintiff’s

statutory claims. The Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA") clearly precludes

judicial review of the Secretary’s "no risk" determinations because those

determinations fall within the Secretary’s "sole and unreviewable discretion." 8

U.S.C. § 1154(a)(1)(A)(viii)(I). Because each of Plaintiff’s statutory claims

challenges how the Secretary exercises that discretion, this court lacks jurisdiction

to review them. City of Rialto v. W. Coast Loading Corp., 581 F.3d 865, 872–73

(9th Cir. 2009).1 

2. We lack—and the district court lacked—jurisdiction to review Plaintiff’s

claim regarding his fundamental right to marry. Assuming, without deciding, that

the INA permits us to review colorable constitutional claims, Plaintiff’s substantive

due process claim is not a colorable one. A non-citizen’s deportation does not

violate his or her family’s substantive due process rights. Morales-Izquierdo v.

Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 600 F.3d 1076, 1091 (9th Cir. 2010), overruled in part on

1

 The government argues that Plaintiff waived a number of his statutory

claims. Because those claims, too, are unreviewable, we need not consider

whether Plaintiff waived them.
other grounds by Garfias-Rodriguez v. Holder, 702 F.3d 504 (9th Cir. 2012) (en

banc). Holding otherwise here would undermine Congress’ plenary power over

immigration. Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 32 (1982). 

VACATED and REMANDED with instructions. The parties shall bear

their own costs on appeal.

3
**Exhibit 23.1**

Consent of Independent Registered Certified Public Accounting Firm 

The Hackett Group, Inc. 

Miami, Florida 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-87749 and 333-32342) and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-69951, 333-90635, 333-39460, 333-64542, and 333-108640) of The Hackett Group, Inc. (formerly Answerthink, Inc. prior to January 1,2008) of our reports dated March 18, 2009, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule, and the effectiveness of The Hackett Group, Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting, which appear inthis Form 10-K. 

/s/ BDO Seidman, LLP 

Miami, Florida 

March 18, 2009
No. 55572.

#### Trefflichs Bird & Animal Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 153045-K (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the facts and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners & Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that the quantity of 255 birds reported by the inspector as not landed was not in fact received by the importer. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited it was held that the importer is entitled to a refund in duties assessed on 255 birds reported by the inspector as not landed. The protest was sustained to this extent.
No. 74-937.

#### Louis et al. *v.*Pennsylvania Industrial Development Authority et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 49501.

#### Protests 29296-K, etc., of John Thallon & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of chicken or poultry in tins assessed on the full content of the tin, and that it is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *Hearty*(31 C. C. P. A. 106, C. A. D. 257), which record was incorporated herein. In accordance therewith the chicken was held dutiable on the weight of the meat alone, as claimed, exclusive of the extraneous material found in the tins and as set forth in this decision.
---

| | Suite 400 - 889 West Pender Street
      Vancouver, BC Canada V6C 3B2
      Tel 604 694-6070
      Fax 604 585-3800
      info@staleyokada.com
      www.staleyokada.com
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS



We
hereby consent to the use in the Pacific Rim Mining Corp. Annual Report to
Shareholders on Form 40-F, of our report dated June 6, 2006,accompanying
the consolidated financial statements of Pacific Rim Mining Corp. for the year
ended April 30, 2006 and to the incorporation by reference thereof to the
Registration Statement on Form S-8 (SEC No. 333-100832) initially filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2002.

|              | Staley, Okada & Partners
|------------- | --------------------------
|              |                           
|              |                           
|              |                           
|              |                           
|July 26, 2006 | STALEY, OKADA & PARTNERS  
|              | Chartered Accountants     



---
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



         We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement Nos. 333-80415 and 333-80409 of Factual Data Corp. on Forms S-3 and
the registration statement Nos. 333-92693 and 333-80101 on Forms S-8 of our
report dated March 28, 2001, appearing in the December 31, 2001 annual report on
Form 10-K of Factual Data Corp. for the years ended December 31, 1999 and 2000.




                                       /s/ Ehrhardt Keefe Steiner & Hottman PC
                                       Ehrhardt Keefe Steiner & Hottman PC

April 15, 2002
Denver, Colorado
kwi102.htm


     

    
 

    KRONOS 
      Internal Memorandum

    


    


    


    


    DATE:                      
      January 14, 2008

    


    TO:                           
       Harold C. Simmons

    


    FROM:                      
      Lawrence A. Wigdor

    


    SUBJECT:                                
      Consultancy Agreement
      Amendment

    


    


    The
      Consultancy Agreement with Lawrence
      A. Wigdor dated July 14, 2003 and Amended on February 13, 2004 and January
      27,
      2006 is further amended as follows:

    


    
      	
              ·  

            	
              The
                December 31, 2008 date is
                changed to December 31, 2010, wherever it appears.

            


    

     

    
      	
              ·  

            	
              The
                minimum annual bonus is
                changed to read as follows:  The minimum annual bonus for any
                calendar year will be no less than 75% of the prior year’s annual
                bonus.  For any year in which less than a full year is worked
                the minimum bonus will be prorated based on the percentage of the
                year
                worked.

            


    

     

    


    All
      other terms and conditions remain as
      in the amended Agreement of February 13, 2004.

    


    


    


    


    


    Approved:/s/
      Harold
      C. Simmons                                                                           
Date:01/14/08                                         

                       
      Harold
      C. Simmons
No. 49506.

#### Protest 105571-K of Barker Bros. Corp. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following Abstract 46823 certain of the merchandise in question was held not subject to countervailing duty.
Order filed October 13, 2015 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-15-00460-CV

____________

ALLEN F. CALTON, Appellant

V.

JASON NEWMAN, LAUREN TANNER AND BAKER BOTTS, LLP, 

Appellees

On Appeal from the 152nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2014-09348

ORDER

On June 26, 2015, this court notified appellant that the appeal was subject to 

dismissal unless appellant filed a response with proof of payment for the record. In 

response, appellant filed an affidavit of indigence. The Harris County District 

Clerk filed a contest. On July 15, 2015, the trial court signed an order sustaining 

the District Clerk’s contest because appellant failed to comply with section 14.004 
of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Therefore, the court issues the 

following order. 

Appellant is ordered to file the clerk’s record with the clerk of this court on 

or before October 30, 2015. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(c). If appellant fails to file 

the clerk’s record in accordance with this order, the appeal will be dismissed. See

Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b).

PER CURIAM
Exhibit
32.2
 
 
 
 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 of DiCon Fiberoptics, Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jannett
Wang, Vice President of Administration of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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
      Company. 
 
 
 /s/
Jannett Wang
 Jannett
Wang
 Vice
President of Administration
 (chief
financial officer)
 
 February
11, 2005
 
 This
certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to
the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
purpose.
# C_2013026EN.01007102.xml

| 26.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/71 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/71

---

Action brought on 10 October 2012 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-114/12)

2013/C 26/145

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: P. K. Rosiak, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the Commission decision which refused to grant the applicant the expatriation allowance

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the Commission decision of 11 July 2012 which refused to grant the applicant the expatriation allowance in Italy; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Commission decision of 11 July 2012 which refused to grant the applicant the expatriation allowance in Italy;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
Exhibit 10.5(a)
  
  Re:
    
    Management Agreement Renewal
   
    
    Smith Barney AAA Energy Fund L.P.
    
    Citigroup AAA Energy Fund L.P. II
    
    Citigroup AAA Master Fund LLC
    
    Citigroup Orion Futures Fund L.P.
    
    Citigroup Diversified Futures Fund L.P.
    
    CMF Institutional Futures Portfolio L.P.
    
    Legion Strategies LLC
    
    Citigroup Energy Advisors Portfolio L.P.
    
    Citigroup Global Futures Fund LTD
    
    Citigroup Orion Futures Fund (Cayman) LTD.
    By:
    /s/  Jennifer MagroJennifer MagroChief Financial Officer & Director AAA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT INC.By:

/s/  Anthony AnnunziatoPrint Name:

Anthony AnnunziatoJM/sr
# C_2013026EN.01006906.xml

| 26.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/69 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/69

---

Order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 21 November 2012 — Axa Belgium v Commission

(Case T-230/12) (1)

1

2013/C 26/140

Language of the case: French

The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.

1

---
July 25, 2011

Mr. Richard Ruvo, Chief, State Implementation Plan Section United States Environmental Protection Agency – Reg ion 2 290 Broadway – 26 th Floor New York, New York 10007-1866

Dear Mr. Ruvo:

Enclosed for your consideration is a proposed Adden dum to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s (NJDEP) March 2, 2011, T echnical Support Document (TSD) for

the Final Determination of Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART). This Addendum is necessary to complete the BART element required und er the Regional Haze rule, and ensures compliance with that BART requirement for qualified equipment located at 1) Vineland Municipal Electric Utility (VMEU) - Howard M. Down, and 2) BL England Generating Station.

NJDEP intends to provide a 30-day public comment pe riod and anticipates publication of a public notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the area where the facilities are located on or about the week of August 1, 2011. After conside ration of public comment, the NJDEP will provide the response to comments document and the A ddendum, including any revisions, as a supplement to the July 2009 Regional Haze State Imp lementation Plan in November, 2011.

We would like to thank Ted Gardella and Bob Kelly, as well as the rest of the staff at the EPA Region 2 office, who worked with my staff in develo ping this Addendum.

If you have any questions regarding this Addendum, please contact Margaret Gardner at (609)

292-7095.

Sincerely yours,

Francis C. Steitz Chief, Bureau of Air Permits CHRIS CHRISTIE D EPARTMENT of E NVIRONMENTAL P ROTECTION BOB MARTIN

Governor Division of Air Quality Acting Commissioner

Bureau of Air Permits

M AILCODE : 401-02

KIM GUADAGNO 401 E. State Street, 2 nd floor, P.O. Box 420

Lt. Governor Trenton, NJ 08625

- 0 420Enclosure: Addendum to March 2, 2009 Final BART Tec hnical Support Document

c: Ted Gardella, Environmental Engineer, Air Prog rams Branch, SIP Section, USEPA 2 Bob Kelly, Regional Air Modeler, Air Programs Branch, SIP Section, USEPA 2 Margaret Gardner
#### Bergdorf Goodman Co. (Globe Shipping Co., Inc.) et al. *v.*United States

No. 6528.

Entry Nos. 766540; 758636.

Invoices dated London, England, April 28, 1946, etc.

Certified April 28, 1946, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., June 6, 1946, etc.

(Decided November 18, 1946)

*John D. Rode*for the plaintiffs.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Cole, Judge

(Abstract): These appeals for reappraisement of various items of merchandise concern the so-called British purchase tax, described in the law of the United Kingdom entitled, “Finance (No. 2) Act 1940 3 & 4 Geo. 6 Ch. 48.” The said tax was held not to be an item to be included in foreign value as defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938 (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. § 1402 (c)). *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. 183, C. A. D. 334.

Undisputed facts establish that the proper basis for appraisement of the instant merchandise is export value, section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. § 1402 .(d)), and that such statutory values for the articles in question are the appraised values less additions, made on entry because of advances in similar cases.
[No. 14552.

Department One.

April 23, 1918.]

#### John J. Schuller, *Respondent,*v. Angela Schuller, Appellant.2

Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Yakima county, Grady, J., entered December 12, 1916, in favor of the plaintiff, in an action for an accounting, tried to the court.

Affirmed.

*Parker, LaBerge & Parker,*for appellant.

*Roberts & Udell,*for respondent.

2

Reported in 171 Pac. 741.

Per Curiam.

On November 20, 1911, respondent assigned to appellant a certain mortgage to secure the payment of an indebtedness owing by respondent to appellant, and this action was brought for an accounting of moneys received by virtue of the assignment, which resulted in a decree in favor of respondent for the sum of $879.63, from which this appeal is prosecuted.

The record presents an unfortunate controversy between mother and son, the transactions involved being numerous and extending over a period of several years. We have carefully examined the evidence and are convinced that the decree of the lower court, under all the facts and circumstances of the case, is just and equitable. Issues of fact only are presented, and no purpose would be served by descending to a discussion of details. The decree is correct and will be affirmed.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

# Land and Maritime Blog Tag List

This is the post for establishing Land and Maritime's blog tags.

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

Councils L&MHeritage and Diversity L&MPersonal Development L&MHealth and Wellness L&MTraining L&MDeployment L&MAsian Pacific American L&MAfrican American Program L&MPeople with Disability Program L&MFederal Women’s Program L&MHispanic Employment Program L&MNative American Program L&MVeteran Employment Program L&MEuropean American L&MLGBT Employment Program L&MBlacks in Government L&MToastmasters L&MNational Contract Management Association L&MWellness L&MSenior Leadership L&MProcess Management L&MSupervisors L&MPACER/Intern L&MDeployer L&MSupply Chain L&MTechnology L&MLabor Management L&MSafety L&MCulture L&MSupply Management L&MAcquisition L&MTechnical Quality & Engineering L&MCommand L&MDetachments L&MDLA L&MMWR L&MDFAS L&MCommunity L&MResiliency L&MVideo L&MSmall Business L&MPolice L&MFire & EMS L&MSAPR L&MSecurity L&M
# C_2014282EN.01002801.xml

| 25.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 1 July 2014 — Jyoti Ceramic Industries v OHIM — DeguDent (ZIECON)

(Case T-239/12) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark ZIECON - Earlier Community word mark CERCON - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Examination of the facts of its own motion - Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009))

2014/C 282/36

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Jyoti Ceramic Industries PVT. Ltd (Nashik, India) (represented by: R. Egerer, D. Jochim and A. Kolb, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: DeguDent GmbH (Hanau, Germany) (represented by: W. Blau, T. Hertl and P. Winkler, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 March 2012 (Case R 2546/2010-1) concerning opposition proceedings between DeguDent GmbH and Jyoti Ceramic Industries PVT. Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Jyoti Ceramic Industries PVT. Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and DeguDent GmbH. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Jyoti Ceramic Industries PVT. Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and DeguDent GmbH.

---

(1)  OJ C 209, 14.7.2012.

1

---