alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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).

The Honorable Joan H. Lefkow, United States District Judge for the ***

Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RENE MANZANARES SALVADOR,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 06-72126

Agency No. A079-523-009

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 4, 2010** 

Pasadena, California

Before: O’SCANNLAIN and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges, and LEFKOW, *** 

District Judge.

Rene Manzanares Salvador, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

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

FILED

MAY 06 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of

discretion, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003), we deny in part

and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Manzanares Salvador’s

motion to reopen, because the motion was filed more than 90 days after the BIA’s

January 31, 2005, order dismissing his underlying appeal, see 8 C.F.R. §

1003.2(c)(2) (motions to reopen generally must be filed within 90 days of the

administrative decision), and Manzanares Salvador failed to establish grounds for

equitable tolling, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 (equitable tolling available

“when a petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as

long as the petitioner acts with due diligence”).

To the extent Manzanares Salvador challenges the BIA’s January 31, 2005,

order dismissing his underlying appeal, we lack jurisdiction because this petition is

not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d

1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
#### Charles DAVIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-344.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 29, 1971.

George B. Blume, Clearwater, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corees, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals a judgment and sentence for two counts of crime against nature.

Appellant’s case was consolidated for trial with two other defendants, each defendant having independent counsel. Preceding the trial appellee had furnished appellant with reciprocal witness lists in which a certain medical doctor was listed as a State’s witness. During the trial the State elected not to call said witness to the stand.

However, the medical doctor was called as a witness for and on behalf of one of appellant’s co-defendants. Over appellant’s objection, appellee was given the right to have opening and closing arguments. The trial court held that because the testimony of this witness was of benefit to all the defendants, said defendants lost their right to opening and closing arguments as provided in Fla.Stat. § 918.09, 1969 F.S.A. (now Cr.P.R. 1.250, 33 F.S.A.).

Appellant argues and we agree that the court committed reversible error in denying appellant the right to closing argument. Faulk v. State, Fla.1958, 104 So.2d 519.

The trial court’s judgment with reference to appellant Davis is reversed and remanded for new trial.

PIERCE, C. J., and HOBSON and McNULTY, JJ„ concur.
Order entered November 7, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-01122-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF M.D., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 196th Judicial District Court

Hunt County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 86664

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s November 4, 2019 request for extension of time to file her 

opening brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the brief be filed no later than November 

8, 2019. Because this is an accelerated appeal in a parental termination case, we caution that 

further extension requests will be disfavored.

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL

JUSTICE
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-11388 Conference Calendar

RONNIE M. BERNAS, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 1:99-CV-74-C

- - - - - - - - - - October 18, 2000 Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Ronnie M. Bernas, federal prisoner # 17580-050, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. He asserts that he should be allowed to challenge alleged sentencing errors in a § 2241 petition because a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 remedy would be successive and therefore unavailable. He further argues that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s (AEDPA) limitations on filing successive § 2255 motions result in a violation of the Suspension Clause if he is not allowed to proceed with a § 2241 petition. See U.S. Const. art. 1, § 9, cl.No. 99-11388 -2- 2. Bernas suggests that his unfamiliarity with the AEDPA’s provisions resulted in a prior unsuccessful pursuit of § 2255 remedies. The district court did not err when it dismissed Bernas’ § 2241 petition. Bernas attempts to circumvent the limitations on filing successive § 2255 motions by characterizing his pleading as a § 2241 petition. Section 2255 is the proper remedy for Bernas because he alleges errors that occurred during sentencing, not errors in the execution of the sentence. See Ojo v. Immigration and Naturalization Service , 106 F.3d 680, 683 (5th Cir. 1997). Bernas cannot now demonstrate that § 2255 relief would be inadequate merely because his previous § 2255 motion was unsuccessful or otherwise is barred by the AEDPA’s provisions. See Tolliver v. Dobre , 211 F.3d 876, 878 (5th Cir. 2000). Moreover, Bernas’ unfamiliarity with the AEDPA’s provisions does not excuse his failure to file a successful § 2255 motion. See Fisher v. Johnson , 174 F.3d 710, 714 (5th Cir. 1999)(ignorance of the law generally does not excuse failure to file a timely petition). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is
AFFIRMED.
#### J. W. DICKSON, Appellant, v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF FORT PIERCE, a national banking corporation, Wilmer H. Goff and Odessa L. Goff, Appellees.

No. 70-336.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 14, 1970.

Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Lucie County; D. C. Smith, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
#### State of Missouri, Respondent, *vs.*Owen Hagan, Appellant.

1. *Practice, criminal*— Pkidence—Confessions, *when inadmissible.*— The officers of the law went to A. and told him that all they wanted was to recover the goods stolen, and if-he would tell them where they were, so that they could get them, that that would be the end of the matter, and nothing further would be done. A. informed them, whereupon he was arrested, arid was convicted on this confession. *Held,*that this confession was involuntary, being induced by the flattery of hope and a promise of-immunity from prosecution, and was inadmissible in evidence.

*Appeal from St. Louis Criminal Court.*

*R. S.*MacDonald, for Appellant.

I. Before a confession of a defendant can be given in evidence against him, it must be shown to be voluntary. (1 Greenl. Ev., §§ 219-22 ; 1 Phillip’s Ev., 449, and cases cited ; Hector vs. State, 2 Mo., 166; State vs. Brockman, 46 Mo., 566, and eases cited.)

II. The officers, who arrested defendant and induced him to confess, were persons in authority, and stood in the same relation to the defendant as the owner of the property or the prosecutor. (1 Greenl. Ev.', § 222; Joy Confess., 59, *61;*Rex vs. Parratt, 4 C. *&*P., 570.)

Wagner, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The accused was indicted for grand larceny, and on the trial there was no evidence to convict him of the offense, except his own confessions.

There was an objection made to the introduction of his confessions on the ground that they were not given voluntarily. The court overruled the objection, and admitted them, and this ruling constitutes the only quéstion in the case. The evidence is clear and explicit, that the officers went to the defendant and talked to him a long time in a friendly manner in reference to the taking of the property stolen, and that he denied knowing anything about it. Finally they told him, that all they wanted was to recover the goods, and, if he would tell them where they were so that they could get them, that that would be an end of the matter, and nothing further would be done. Defendant then told what he knew about *193the larceny, and where the stolen articles were. He was then arrested, indicted, and convicted. It is very plain that the confessions were not voluntarily made. They were directly induced by the flattery of hope, and what the prisoner understood to be an assurance of immunity from prosecution in the event that he confessed and told what he knew about the transaction.

They were therefore wrongly admitted in evidence. (Hector vs. State, 2 Mo., 166 ; State vs. Brockman, 46 Mo., 566.)

The judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded.

The other judges concur.
#### Irene Mattie BAGLEY, Appellant, v. Jessie Lee JAMES and Travelers Insurance Company, a corporation, Appellees.

No. O-230.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 12, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7720 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7720

   To permit child care providers that receive payment for services 
 provided under the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 
 to use a portion of such payment to pay the cost of sanitization and 
   other costs associated with the COVID-19 public health emergency, 
  necessary to protect the health of participating children and child 
                             care workers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 22, 2020

Mr. Cisneros (for himself and Mr. Bacon) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To permit child care providers that receive payment for services 
 provided under the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 
 to use a portion of such payment to pay the cost of sanitization and 
   other costs associated with the COVID-19 public health emergency, 
  necessary to protect the health of participating children and child 
                             care workers.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Helping Child Care Providers Respond 
to the Coronavirus Public Health Emergency Act of 2020''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO PAY THE COST OF SANITIZATION AND OTHER COSTS 
              ASSOCIATED WITH THE COVID-19 PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY TO 
              PROTECT CHILDREN WHO RECEIVE CERTAIN CHILD CARE SERVICES.

    A child care provider who receives payment for services provided 
under the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 
9857 et seq.) may use a portion of such payment to pay the cost of 
sanitization and other costs associated with the COVID-19 public health 
emergency, to protect children who receive such services and child care 
workers who provide such services.

SEC. 3. DEFINITION.

    For purposes of this Act, the term ``COVID-19 public health 
emergency'' means the public health emergency declared by the Secretary 
of Health and Human Services under section 319 of the Public Health 
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d) on January 31, 2020, with respect to 
COVID-19, including any renewal of the declaration.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
     financial statements of Farrel Corporation as of March 29, 1998 and for the
     three months then ended and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
     such statements
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000034645
<NAME>                        FARREL
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     US$
       
<S>                             <C>            
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-29-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                     1
<CASH>                                          3,533
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  13,837
<ALLOWANCES>                                      224
<INVENTORY>                                    23,397
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               43,028
<PP&E>                                         22,921
<DEPRECIATION>                                 10,319
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 62,212
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          28,725
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                           61
<OTHER-SE>                                     26,053
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   62,212
<SALES>                                        15,976
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               15,976
<CGS>                                          11,740
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  11,740
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                3,738
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                315
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   183
<INCOME-TAX>                                       73
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               110
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                      110
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .02
        


</TABLE>
From: Sent: To: Subject: 

### Bruce McGlasson [bmcglasson@flygrant.com] Wednesday, March 21, 2012 5:03PM Adams, Kevin (OST) RE: Atka and Nikolski ' '**~-** '; -.!: 

## 2

Grant Aviation has only recently become aware ofthe Department's need for EAS proposals to serve Atka and Nikolski, Alaska. To allow GrantAviation to provide adetailed, reasonable proposal forthe Department's consideration, we respectfully request an extension ofthe deadline for submittal ofour proposal until March 30, 2012.

As this will be the first time GrantAviation has made a proposal to provide EAS, the requested extension will be needed by ourcompany to ensure that a thorough review of logistical demands and service requirements may be completed priorto submittal.

As current EAS contracts serving these destinations do not expire until the end ofJune, 2012, the brief extension requested should not cause undue hardship to the concerned communities norany disadvantage to otherair carriers making competing proposals.

Thank you foryour consideration,

R. Bruce McGlasson President Grant Aviation, Inc.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 112 (Monday, June 11, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 27003]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12425]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Notice of Agreements Filed

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following 
agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may 
submit comments on the agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime 
Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this 
notice appears in the Federal Register. Copies of the agreements are 
available through the Commission's website (www.fmc.gov) or by 
contacting the Office of Agreements at (202)-523-5793 or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a7d3d5c6c3c2c6c9c6cbded4ced4e7c1cac489c0c8d1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a9dddbc8cdccc8c7c8c5d0dac0dae9cfc4ca87cec6df">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Agreement No.: 012356-001.
    Title: Matson/Mell Space Charter Agreement (Pacific Islands).
    Parties: Matson Navigation Company, Inc. and Mariana Express Lines 
Pte. Ltd.
    Filing Party: David J. Tubman, Assistant General Counsel; Matson; 
555 12th Street; Oakland, CA 94607.
    Synopsis: The amendment updates the Agreement to reflect reciprocal 
space charter authority, and makes other administrative changes to the 
Agreement.

    Agreement No.: 201250.
    Title: Marine Terminal Services Agreement between Port of Houston 
Authority and Zim Integrated Shipping Services Ltd.
    Parties: Port of Houston Authority and Zim Integrated Shipping 
Services Ltd.
    Filing Party: Chasless Yancy; Port of Houston Authority; 111 East 
Loop North; Houston, TC 77029.
    Synopsis: The Agreement sets forth certain discounted rates and 
charges applicable to Zim's container vessels calling at PHA's Barbours 
Cut and Bayport Container Terminals in the Port of Houston. The MTSA 
will commence upon filing with the Federal Maritime Commission, and the 
term of the MTSA is for 10 years following such filing, with an option 
to jointly agree upon a five-year extension.

    Dated: June 5, 2018.
Rachel E. Dickon,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-12425 Filed 6-8-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6731-AA-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7699 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7699

To require the Federal Trade Commission to submit a report to Congress 
          on scams targeting seniors, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 21, 2020

  Ms. Kelly of Illinois (for herself, Mr. Marshall, and Mr. Casten of 
  Illinois) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the Federal Trade Commission to submit a report to Congress 
          on scams targeting seniors, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting Seniors from Emergency 
Scams Act''.

SEC. 2. FTC REPORT ON SCAMS TARGETING SENIORS DURING EMERGENCIES.

    Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
Federal Trade Commission (referred to in this Act as the 
``Commission'') shall submit a report to Congress including--
            (1) a description of the number and types of scams 
        identified by the Commission as being targeted at senior 
        citizens; and
            (2) policy recommendations to prevent such scams, 
        especially as such scams relate to future national emergencies.

SEC. 3. INCREASING AWARENESS OF SCAMS TARGETING SENIORS.

    (a) In General.--As soon as practicable after the date of enactment 
of this Act, the Commission shall update its web portal to include the 
latest information, searchable by region and type of scam, on scams 
targeting seniors, including contacts for relevant law enforcement and 
adult protective service agencies.
    (b) Coordination With Media Outlets and Law Enforcement.--The 
Commission shall work with media outlets and law enforcement to 
distribute the information included in the web portal of the Commission 
pursuant to subsection (a) to senior citizens and their families and 
caregivers.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES

                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

                             Washington, D.C. 20549

                             _______________________

                                    FORM 8-K

                                 CURRENT REPORT
                             _______________________

                     PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(D) OF THE
                         SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

                Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported):

                               February 2, 2011

                       Diamond Hill Investment Group, Inc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)

                                      Ohio
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 (State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation)

             000-24498                              65-0190407
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      (Commission File Number)         (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)

      325 John H. McConnell Blvd, Suite 200, Columbus, Ohio         43215
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      (Address of Principal Executive Offices)                    (Zip Code)

Registrant's Telephone Number, Including Area Code:   (614) 255-3333

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          (Former Name or Former Address, if Changed Since Last Report)

<PAGE>

Item 8.01.    Other Events
----------   --------------------------------------------

     The following is a summary of assets under management as of January 31,
2011 (in millions):


	By Investment Vehicle
	---------------------

Separate Accounts	 	$  3,457
Mutual Funds 			   4,235
Sub-Advised Mutual Funds	   1,031
Private Investment Funds	     210
                                --------
Total			       	$  8,933

	By Investment Strategy
	----------------------
Small Cap			$    972
Small-Mid Cap		             293
Select				     412
Large Cap 			   4,852
Long-Short		           2,229
Strategic Income		     175
				--------
Total			        $  8,933


                                    SIGNATURE
                                    ---------

     Pursuant to the  requirements  of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934,
the registrant  has duly  caused  this  report  to be  signed  on its  behalf
by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

                                        DIAMOND HILL INVESTMENT GROUP, INC.


Date: February 2, 2011	                    By: /s/ James F. Laird
                                            -------------------------------
                                            James F. Laird, Chief Financial
                                            Officer and Secretary