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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ADELSO DANIEL BARRIOS

CALDERON, AKA Adelso Daniel Barrios,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney

General,

Respondent. No. 15

- 73827

Agency No. A070

- 819

- 144

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.

Adelso Daniel Barrios

- Calderon, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions

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

* 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 APPEALS2 15

- 73827

Mohammed v. Gonzales , 400 F.3d 785, 791

- 92 (9th Cir. 2005). We review de

novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Simeonov v.

Ashcroft , 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004 ). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Barrios

- Calderon’s untimely

motion to reopen because Barrios

- Calderon failed to establish that he qualified for

an exception to the time limitation for filing a motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Toufighi v. Mukasey , 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008) ( movant

must produce material evidence that conditions in country of nationality had

changed and establish a prima facie case for the relief sought ).

Barrios

- Calderon’s contention that the BIA violated his right to due process

fails

. See Lata v. INS , 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (error required to

prevail on a due process claim).

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the

mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### James BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. L-425.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

Nov. 4, 1969.

James Brown, in pro. per.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., James Robert Yon, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks reversal of an order entered by the trial court denying appellant’s motion to vacate judgment and sentence imposed upon his being found guilty of robbery by a jury.

The crime which the jury ascribed to the appellant was the robbery of Walter’s Five and Ten Store, 303 Broad Street in Jacksonville. During the course of the trial, appellant was identified by two ladies who were working in the store at the time of the robbery. Appellant was one of three men who were thus implicated.

The appellant’s conviction was affirmed by this court on an earlier occasion, Brown v. State, 197 So.2d 853 (1967).

The points asserted in support of appellant’s motion to vacate are without merit. Such matters are not properly within the purview of a motion to vacate judgment and sentence. Devlin v. State, 192 So.2d 786 (Fla.App.1966).

Post-conviction proceedings are generally not a substitute for a timely appeal. Nor do such proceedings have as their purpose a second appeal. There is a significant distinction between the matters which can be considered by an appellate court on a direct appeal and the matters which constitute grounds for relief in post-conviction proceedings under Criminal Rule 1.850 (formerly Criminal Rule 1), 33 Florida Statutes Annotated. Austin v. State, 160 So.2d 730 (Fla.App.1964).

Criminal Rule 1.850 is substantially the same as its federal counterpart, Section 2255, 28 U.S.C.A. The federal cases brought under Section 2255 have adhered to the same distinction between matters which may be considered on direct appeal and those which may be raised in post-conviction proceedings. A representative group of such federal cases are cited in Austin v. State, supra, and are deserving of the attention of those prisoners who prepare their own motions to vacate under Criminal Rule 1.850.

Inasmuch as the matters raised by appellant’s motion are not properly cognizable under the subject rule, the trial judge cor*528rectly denied the relief sought by appellant and the said order of denial is therefore

Affirmed.

CARROLL, Donald K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
### Source Categories Emissions (tons/yr) % Cumulative % Municipal Landfills 1.77E+01 92.01 92.01 Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing (MON) 9.12E-01 4.73 96.74 Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) 5.78E-01 3.00 99.73 Tire Manufacturing 5.13E-02 0.27 100.00

Total Emissions1.93E+01 100.00 

### 1,2-Dichloropropane
#### Shirley A. KETTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-1257.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 1, 1978.

Jack 0. Johnson, Public Defender, Bar-tow, Stephen 0. Rushing, Asst. Public Defender, and Stephannie DaCosta, Legal Intern, Tampa, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Martha J. Cook, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant entered a plea of guilty to a charge of possession of heroin. The court *932sentenced her to a term of one year in county jail but ordered that the sentence be suspended after ninety days and appellant placed on three years probation. During the period of appellant’s probation, her supervisor filed an affidavit charging her with a violation of probation. Pursuant to plea negotiations, appellant admitted the violation and the court sentenced her to one year in county jail with credit for the time spent in prison awaiting the revocation hearing.

On this appeal, appellant contends that the court also should have given her credit for the ninety days she spent in jail on the original sentence. This is clearly required under *State v. Jones,*327 So.2d 18 (Fla.1976). There is nothing in the record to suggest that the plea negotiations contemplated a one year sentence in addition to the ninety days which had already been served for the same crime.

The order revoking probation is affirmed. The case is remanded for correction of sentence. Appellant need not be present when this is done.

HOBSON, A. C. J., and GRIMES and SCHEB, JJ., concur.
### Order issued October 

### 1

## ~ , 2012



### In The 

## Qtourt of 1\ppcals lJiift}f ilistrirt of wcxas at ilallas No. 05-11-01718-CV WOODHAVEN PARTNERS, LTD., ET AL., Appellants 

# v. SHAMOUN & 

### NORMAN, LLPF/K/A SHAMOUN KLATSKY NORMAN, Appellee 

### ORDER We 

### GRANT appellants' October 16, 2012 unopposed motion for leave to supplement its reply briefwith an omitted exhibit. We 

### ORDER appellants' exhibit supplementto their replybrief tendered to this Court on October 16, 2012 filed as ofthe date ofthis order.
Exhibit 32

                          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 Public Service Company of New
Hampshire (the registrant) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), we, Cheryl
W. Grise, Chief Executive Officer of the registrant, and John H. Forsgren,
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the registrant,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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 result of operations of the registrant.

/s/ Cheryl W. Grise
    (Signature)
    Cheryl W. Grise
    Chief Executive Officer

/s/ John H. Forsgren
    (Signature)
    John H. Forsgren
    Executive Vice President and
    Chief Financial Officer

August 8, 2003

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

9-AWA-AVS-333Exemptions (FAA) 

Dear Ms. Zsigmond: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. 

FAA−2015−3079). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your 

petition.

 Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) which is required by Order 

8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to proceed without this manual and remove 

closed-set filming from your proposed operation please inform of us of your intention by the requested response 

date listed below.

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov. Once your 

information has been submitted, please also send a copy of the requested information (and any proprietary 

information), as well as your comment tracking number from regulations.gov via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If

you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information described above by November 17, 

2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-2999 .

 

FAA Office of Rulemaking 

Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 11:20 AM 

To: info@skyviewpros.com
#### Abe SCHONFELD et ux., Appellants, v. METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, Appellee.

No. 77-591.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 2, 1978.

Rehearing Denied June 2, 1978.

Milton Kelner, Miami, for appellants.

Stuart L. Simon, County Atty., and R. A. Cuevas, Jr., Asst. County Atty., for appel-lee.

Before HUBBART and KEHOE, JJ., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *Northcutt v. State Road Dept.,*209 So.2d 710 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968).
|   | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of § 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 the Company. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  May 7, 2010 | By:    | /s/ Charles N. Eldred                                            |
|------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                         |   | Charles N. Eldred                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |
|                         |   | Executive Vice President and                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|                         |   | Chief Financial Officer                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |
|                         |   | Public Service Company of New Mexico                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheets, statements of operations and statements of cash
flows as reported in the form 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                 1,000
       
<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                          JUL-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                           SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                      43,272
<SECURITIES>                                 3,300
<RECEIVABLES>                               26,214
<ALLOWANCES>                                 3,759
<INVENTORY>                                 44,082
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           118,172
<PP&E>                                     179,459
<DEPRECIATION>                              91,351
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             231,464
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       53,066
<BONDS>                                     99,513
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                        94
<OTHER-SE>                                  36,254
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               231,464
<SALES>                                     68,644
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            69,445
<CGS>                                       46,714
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               46,714
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            14,597
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,934
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              6,150
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,244
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,906
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              2,413
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,493
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .17
        


</TABLE>
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 Annual Report of Joshua Gold Resources Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),I, Dino Micacchi, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:  (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 as of the date and for the periods expressed in the Report.  /s/ Dino MicacchiDino MicacchiChief Financial OfficerApril 16, 2012
    The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
#### Ex parte Garet VAN ANTWERP.

77-461.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

May 26, 1978.

JONES, Justice.

WRIT DENIED.

TORBERT, C. J., and MADDOX, SHORES and BEATTY, JJ., concur.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 10

- 00443

- CV

IN RE RICHARD LARA RELATOR

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

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

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

The court has considered relator’s petition for writ of mandamu s and is of

the opinion that relief should be denied. Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of

mandamus is denied.

BILL MEIER

JUSTICE

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; MEIER and GABRIEL, JJ.

MEIER, J. would request a response.

DELIVERED: December 16, 201 0

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4, 52.8 (d).
#### Barry E. DUNN, a minor, by and through his father and next friend Robert E. Dunn, and Robert E. Dunn, Individually, Appellants, v. Ronald HAYDEN et al., Appellees.

No. 73-615.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 19, 1973.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Brevard County; Roger Dykes, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
Public Service Company of New HampshireExhibit 12Ratio of Earnings to Fixed ChargesSix Months(Thousands of Dollars)EndedJune 30, 2009For the Years Ended December 31,(unaudited)20082007200620052004Earnings, as defined:Net income$34,065$58,067$54,434$35,323$41,739$46,641Income tax expense14,38021,99622,79439,18312,23412,993Equity in (earnings)/losses of regional nucleargenerating companies(32)(62)(343)74(230)(165)Dividends received from regional equity investees220-521367172614Fixed charges, as below25,38554,59750,63750,09249,75147,211Less: Interest capitalized (including AFUDC)(1,554)(2,967)(2,985)(2,768)(1,896)(272)Total earnings, as defined$72,464$131,631$125,058$122,271$101,770$107,022Fixed charges, as defined:Interest on long-term debt (a)$16,370$32,655$26,029$24,100$20,481$17,441Interest on rate reduction bonds7,06415,96918,01320,82824,07426,901Other interest (b)(337)1,5392,2438291,7331,197Rental interest factor7341,4671,3671,5671,5671,400Interest capitalized (including AFUDC)1,5542,9672,9852,7681,896272Total fixed charges, as defined$25,385$54,597$50,637$50,092$49,751$47,211Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges2.852.412.472.442.052.27(a)
Interest on long-term debt amounts include amortized premiums, discounts and capitalized expenses related to indebtedness.(b)
For the six months ended June 30, 2009, other interest includes interest related to Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No. 48, "Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes - an Interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109."
MEMORANDUM 

FROM: Keith Barnett, US EPA 

TO: Portland Cement NESHAP Docket 

SUBJECT: Calculation of PM MACT Floor Based on Data in 1998 Proposal 

DATE: July 7, 2010 

In the 1998 Portland Cement NESHAP proposal we had data from 27 kilns, which means we use 

the top 4 (.12 x 27 = 3.24 and we round up) 

The average emissions for the top 4 (data are kg/Mg feed) is 

PH ....................................... FF 0.0011 Southdown—Kosmosdale, KY. 

PC ....................................... FF 0.0039 Boxcrow Cement—Midlothian, TX. 

PH ....................................... ESP 0.0075 Ash Grove—Durkee, OR. 

DRY .................................... FF 0.0090 Southdown #1—Fairborn, OH. 

The average comes out as 0.005375 kg/Mg. This converts to 0.01075 lb/ton feed, which 

converts to 0.017738 lb/ton clinker. Note that 3 of the four facilities have multiple tests. 

The average PM rate would then be 0.017738 which is actually lower that the average PM rate 

that sets the existing source standard (0.01876) if we assume a similar variability if we had done 

the 1999 standard correctly the PM limit would actually be lower that the limit we have currently 

calculated.
Treasury approves Massachusetts' plan to invest $21.6 million of CPF 

funding in broadband infrastructure projects that will provide high-quality 

internet to locations that lack access to adequate service.

Capital Projects Fund Award Fact Sheet

Massachusetts

 

▪ Program Summary: $21.6 million for Broadband Infrastructure (12% of CPF allocation)

▪ Locations to Be Served: 18,000 housing units (estimated)

▪ Program Description: The Residential Internet Retrofit program is a competitive grant program that 

will fund projects designed to remedy issues with the quality of residential internet service and make 

long-term investments to ensure residents of participating affordable housing developments have 

access to reliable high-speed internet. 

‒ This program is designed to provide internet service with speeds of 100/100 Mbps upon project 

completion.

‒ Internet service providers utilizing investments funded by CPF will be required to participate in 

the FCC’s Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) – a $30 per month subsidy for low-income 

families. 

▪ Key State Contact: Massachusetts Technology Collaborative (MassTech)

Massachusetts Capital Projects Fund Program Overview

For More Information: 

For Media Inquiries: 

For General Inquiries:

Please visit www.treasury.gov/CPF

Please contact the U.S. Treasury Press Office at (202) 622-2960

Please email CapitalProjectsFund@treasury.gov for additional information
#### BASIC FOOD INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellant, v. ROBERT HALF PERSONNEL AGENCIES OF FLORIDA, INC., Appellee.

No. 73-847.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 12, 1974.

Diaz-Asper, Katzen, Chulock & Thompson, South Miami, for appellant.

Yelen &■ Yelen, Coral Gables, for ap-pellee.

Before CARROLL and HAVERFIELD, JJ., and DREW E. HARRIS, Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant-appellant appeals an adverse final judgment entered by the trial court which awarded plaintiff $3,000 plus costs.

Plaintiff-appellee, a personnel agency, filed suit against the defendant-appellant Basic Food Industries, Inc. to recover on an account stated for services in securing an executive-employee for a subsidiary of the defendant. Plaintiff agency alleged that in May 1971 its manager, Mr. Doro, received a telephone call from one Framke who identified himself as president of the defendant corporation and requested Mr. Doro to find a comptroller for a subsidiary company of the defendant-appellant. In accordance with this request plaintiff secured for the defendant as an employee Lee Reifel and thereafter plaintiff sent a $3,000 invoice for services rendered to the appellant who refused to pay it. Plaintiff then filed its complaint to recover the $3,000 and attached thereto a fee schedule and a copy of the invoice mailed to the defendant. The cause was tried non-jury at the conclusion of which the trial court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $3,-000, from which defendant now appeals.

On appeal, appellant basically contends that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case. We disagree.

After a careful examination of the record on appeal we conclude there was substantial competent evidence contained therein to sustain the trial court in finding the existence of a debt from the defendant to the plaintiff in the amount of $3,000. See Gendzier v. Bielecki, Fla.1957, 97 So.2d 604.

Accordingly, the judgment herein appealed is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.