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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1134 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1134

To amend the Arms Export Control Act to prohibit the removal of certain 
items under category I, II, or III of the United States Munitions List.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 8, 2019

 Mrs. Torres of California (for herself, Mr. Engel, Mr. Cicilline, Mr. 
    Deutch, Ms. Kelly of Illinois, Mr. Lowenthal, and Mr. McGovern) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                            Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Arms Export Control Act to prohibit the removal of certain 
items under category I, II, or III of the United States Munitions List.

    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 ``Prevent Crime and Terrorism Act of 
2019''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON REMOVAL OF CERTAIN ITEMS UNDER CATEGORIES I, II, 
              AND III OF THE UNITED STATES MUNITIONS LIST.

    Section 38(f)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 
2778(f)(1)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``(f)(1) The President'' and inserting 
        ``(f)(1)(A) The President'';
            (2) in the third sentence, by striking ``The President'' 
        and inserting ``Subject to subparagraph (B), the President''; 
        and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(B)(i) The President may not remove any item 
                described in clause (ii) from the United States 
                Munitions List.
                    ``(ii) The items described in this clause are items 
                included in category I, II, or III of the United States 
                Munitions List, as in effect on August 31, 2017.''.
                                 <all>
```
A/o. 14-11 - OpqSfG-CR

jrtf£_^T_aX^OJ__T__*ii__ 3 "TV TH£ H+h P.

ComRT or QPPFALS

^i^7JfcLo^.y_-Xa.ftl£X_C SX£_ JMoti-fTQiV ,, T£x ft

>v>orxo.v ^o/g BHiniTi

^o_XttiT_y^^_&;9J?^/r_:ruD^

_Co«j.«i.4_A^6jwj_0.nAko.-/»y_ J.r-Q*£-£-r-&-P-p-*-JJa«^_w^_ke_«.ko.:V_e_

_£<^p£Ly_j£kjt_J)-p^_cd.ta

„1_. E.A-kLk:iJr_J!/o_^5_SL^>_Dva_rie_p.o;c_4_4_anJ_

I k _a_ _«.t.e.V_tf e X_ki-bjL'k..f-_WL<3 J_n.o_^L_Llo_cJLfc»d_ecl_tOL»J_b_Jdb_e_

r fcy»r^r,j r& <ior<j s

_&fi.a_y_/£/2_

JA^J£.J2J£.£&&£-j_^f^

.qran-te his Morton Pop E*h\hl 4- S,

ttliw__Jlu.kfc»_i-f 4a cL

Bn4hoiffl "J- Ca-fg^

tdcj-id; _3fli25M£Z
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of --

Northrop Grumman Corporation 

Under Contract No. 000000-00-0-0000 

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ASBCA No. 59596 

Kevin C. Dwyer, Esq. 

Ethan E. Marsh, Esq. 

Jenner & Block LLP 

Washington, DC 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: E. Michael Chiaparas, Esq. 

DCMA Chief Trial Attorney 

Joseph D. Keller, Esq. 

Trial Attorney 

Defense Contract Management Agency 

Chantilly, VA 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: 9 April 2015 

~r(!fi{-- 7MARK N. STEMPLER 

Administrative Judge 

Acting Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 59596, Appeal of Northrop 

Grumman Corporation, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
User Fee Obligations by Program for FY22

FY 2022

Grain Insp. & 

Weigh. 

Grain 

I&W 

$/MT

Grain Official 

Agencies Supv

Grain 

OA 

Supv 

$/MT Rice Commodities

5 Year Rolling Average (FY17-21) 123,853,477

Actual Metric Tons FY 2022 123,745,530 225,570,903

Salary and Benefits $30,610,243 0.247 $1,000,004 0.004 $4,657,288 $1,988,947

Travel $809,744 0.007 $37,010 0.000 $130,772 $35,675

Shipping and Moving Expenses $96,530 0.001 -$6,958 0.000 -$157 $1,880

Rent and Utilities $1,150,199 0.009 $12,119 0.000 $188,841 $159,196

Printing $22,932 0.000 $2,133 0.000 $3,932 $655

Other Services1 $2,355,016 0.019 $179,502 0.001 $427,781 $119,176

Supplies and Materials $535,758 0.004 $3,399 0.000 $24,290 $103,311

Equipment $165,442 0.001 $ - - $11,355 $44,855

Grants, Subsidies, and Contributions $ - 0.000 $ - - $0 $0

Insurance Claims $57,168 0.000 $ - - $0 $0

Interest Paid $16 0.000 $1 0.000 $1 $8

TOTAL $35,803,048 $0.289 $1,227,210 $0.005 $5,444,102 $2,453,702 

1Other Services includes AMS overhead costs, Agency and Mission Area-level administrative support costs (e.g., Information 

Technology and Human Resource Support), as well as costs for FGIS contracts and training.

Dated: 11/21/2022
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

April 28, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
135799 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 135799 COA: 272631 Wayne CC: 06-004368-02 DUQUIL DION LOVE, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the December 18, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

p0421 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 28, 2008

Clerk
IIB 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1064 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 12, 2019 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to allow whistleblowers 

to disclose information to certain recipients. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 1064 RFS

1 SECTION 1. RECIPIENTS OF WHISTLEBLOWER DISCLO2 SURES. 

3 Section 2302(b)(8)(B) of title 5, United States Code, 

4 is amended by striking ‘‘or to the Inspector’’ and all that 

5 follows through ‘‘such disclosures’’ and inserting ‘‘the In6 spector General of an agency, a supervisor in the employ7 ee’s direct chain of command up to and including the head 

8 of the employing agency, or to an employee designated by 

9 any of the aforementioned individuals for the purpose of 

10 receiving such disclosures’’. 

11 SEC. 2. DETERMINATION OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS. 

12 The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of 

13 complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, 

14 shall be determined by reference to the latest statement 

15 titled ‘‘Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation’’ for this 

16 Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional Record 

17 by the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, pro18 vided that such statement has been submitted prior to the 

19 vote on passage. 

Passed the House of Representatives February 11, 

2019. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A14A2269. HUERTA-RAMIREZ v. THE STATE.

Upon consideration of the entire record and applicable law, this interlocutory

appeal is hereby DISMISSED as having been improvidently granted. 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

03/23/2015

March 23, 2015
**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 Quarterly Report of Airbee Wireless, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2007, as filed with
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      Sundaresan Raja, Chief Executive Officer 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, to the best of my knowledge, that:





(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





(2)
      The
      information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of the operations of the
      Company.


/s/
                    Sundaresan RajaSundaresan
                          Raja
                        Principal
                          Executive Officer





December
      19, 2007
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Douglas Boateng, the Chief Executive Officer, and Debra Farquharson, the Chief Financial Officer, of Douglas Lake Minerals Inc. (the "Company"), each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his/her knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended August 31, 2011, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



| | "Douglas Boateng"Douglas BoatengPresident, Chief Executive Officer and a director 
Date:  October 21, 2011                 
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | "Debra Farquharson"Debra FarquharsonExecutive VP, Secretary, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer 
Date:  October 21, 2011

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, 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.

__________
CAUSE NUMBER 14—15—00038—CR 

VICTOR JENKINS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

 

V. FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS 

 

STATE OF TEXAS STATE OF TEXAS 

APPELLANT’S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR FILING OF 

APPELLANT’S BRIEF

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS: 

COMES NOW THE APPELLANT, by and through his appointed 

attorney of record, Paul M. Evans, in the above entitled and numbered 

cause, and moves this Court, to grant the Appellant’s Motion to Extend 

Time for Filing Appellant’s Brief, and, in support thereof, would show the 

Court as follows: 

 I.

Appellant’s Brief is due before this Court on this date, April 6, 2015. 

No previous Motions to Extend Time have been sought. 

 II. 

The undersigned counsel anticipates filing an Anders brief in the 

instant cause. On this same date, the undersigned counsel noticed a 

discrepancy in the record. To-wit, the “Docket Sheet” found in the Clerk’s 

Record—see CR1 82-3—was apparently electronically scanned by the 

ACCEPTED

14-15-00038-CR

FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

4/6/2015 6:43:06 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 14th COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 4/6/2015 6:43:06 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
Travis County District Clerk shortly after sentencing in the instant cause. 

After examining in person the actual physical docket sheet on this same 

date, the undersigned counsel confirmed his suspicion that the trial court 

had made one additional notation on said docket sheet that is not reflected 

by the version found in the present Clerk’s Record. At the undersigned 

counsel’s request, the District Clerk will be supplementing the Clerk’s 

Record with the “updated” “Docket Sheet” forthwith. 

 III. 

Counsel would very respectfully request that the deadline for the 

Appellant’s brief be extended to April 14, 2015, in order that the 

undersigned counsel may have ample opportunity to incorporate the 

supplemental material into the Appellant’s Brief and fulfill his obligations 

both to his client and to this Court. 

 IV. 

This Motion is not made for purposes of delay, but so that justice 

might be served. 

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Defendant respectfully 

prays that this Court, upon good cause shown, grant the Appellant’s Motion 

to Extend Time for Filing Appellant’s Brief.
 Respectfully submitted,

 Law Office of Paul M. Evans

 811 Nueces Street

 Austin, Texas 78701

 (512) 569-1418

 (512) 692-8002 FAX

 _/s/ Paul M. Evans________ 

 PAUL M. EVANS

 SBN 24038885

 Attorney for Defendant

 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing 

was delivered by facsimile unto the office of the prosecuting attorney for the 

State of Texas—mailing address P.O. Box 1748, Austin, Texas 78767, 

physical address 509 W. 11th Street, Austin, Texas 78701—on this the 6

th

day of April, 2015. 

 

 _/s/ Paul M. Evans________ 

 PAUL M. EVANS

 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

 I hereby certify that the present document contains 442 words, all 

contents included. 

 _/s/ Paul M. Evans________ 

 PAUL M. EVANS
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 96 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 96

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
  ensure that an Act of Congress that increases the number of judges 
 comprising the Supreme Court may not take effect before the date that 
        is 10 years after the date of the enactment of such Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 29, 2020

 Mr. Collins of Georgia (for himself, Mr. Weber of Texas, Mr. Smucker, 
 Mr. Gibbs, Mr. Reschenthaler, Mr. Kevin Hern of Oklahoma, Mr. Waltz, 
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia, Mr. John W. Rose of Tennessee, Mr. Allen, 
 Mr. Buck, and Mr. Crawford) submitted the following joint resolution; 
          which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
  ensure that an Act of Congress that increases the number of judges 
 comprising the Supreme Court may not take effect before the date that 
        is 10 years after the date of the enactment of such Act.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled   (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

                              ``Article--

    ``An Act of Congress that increases the number of judges comprising 
the Supreme Court may not take effect before the date that is 10 years 
after the date of the enactment of such Act.''.
                                 <all>
```
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.

Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum

opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain

computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of

Appeals and does not include the filing date. 

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

2 STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

3 Plaintiff-Appellee,

4 v. No. 34,304

5 ROLAND WAYNE YOINGCO,

6 Defendant-Appellant.

7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CHAVES COUNTY

8 Steven L. Bell, District Judge

9 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 

10 Margaret E. McLean, Assistant Attorney General

11 Joel Jacobsen, Assistant Attorney General

12 Santa Fe, NM

13 for Appellee

14 Hennighausen & Olsen, L.L.P.

15 Kenneth B. Wilson

16 Jeff Grandjean

17 Roswell, NM

18 for Appellant
2

1 MEMORANDUM OPINION

2 WECHSLER, Judge.

3 {1} Defendant Roland Yoingco appeals from his judgment and sentence, entered

4 pursuant to a jury trial at which Defendant was found guilty of aggravated burglary,

5 pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 30-16-4 (1963). We issued a notice of proposed

6 summary disposition, proposing to reverse and remand. The State has filed a response,

7 indicating that it will not be filing a memorandum in opposition. Accordingly, for the

8 reasons stated in our notice, we reverse Defendant’s conviction and remand for a new

9 trial.

10 {2} IT IS SO ORDERED.

11 ________________________________

12 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge

13 WE CONCUR:

14 ________________________________

15 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge

16 ________________________________
3

1 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge
IA 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 61 

Providing for congressional disapproval of the proposed export to the Kingdom 

of Saudi Arabia and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern 

Ireland of certain defense articles and services. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 12, 2019 

Mr. CICILLINE (for himself, Mr. TED LIEU of California, Ms. SPANBERGER, 

Mr. MALINOWSKI, Mr. ENGEL, Mr. BERA, Ms. OMAR, Mr. ALLRED, Mr. 

DEUTCH, Mr. KEATING, Mr. CONNOLLY, Mr. CASTRO of Texas, and Mr. 

SHERMAN) submitted the following joint resolution; which was referred to 

the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval of the proposed export to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United 

Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland of certain defense articles and services. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That the issuance of an export license with respect to the 

4 following proposed exports to the Kingdom of Saudi Ara5 bia and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and North6 ern Ireland is prohibited: 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HJ 61 IH 

1 (1) The transfer of the following defense arti2 cles, including services and technical data, described 

3 in license document DDTC–17–112 as designated by 

4 the Department of State pursuant to the Arms Ex5 port Control Act: The proposed transfer of defense 

6 articles, defense services, and technical data to sup7 port the manufacture of the Aurora Fuzing System 

8 for the Paveway IV Precision Guided Bomb Pro9 gram. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-08-00439-CR

Larry Johnson, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 427TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-DC-07-204693, HONORABLE MELISSA YOUNG GOODWIN, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Larry Johnson was convicted by the trial court of attempted sexual assault,

enhanced by three prior convictions, and was sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment. Appellant’s

appointed attorney has filed a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. 

Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating that there are no arguable

grounds to be advanced. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988); Anders, 386 U.S. at 743-44;

High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811-13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684,

684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969).

Appellant’s attorney sent appellant a copy of the brief and advised him that he had the right to

examine the record and file a pro se brief. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Jackson v. State,

485 S.W.2d 553, 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972). No pro se brief has been filed.
No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of 1

his case by the court of criminal appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for

discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See generally Tex. R. App.

P. 68-79 (governing proceedings in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals). Any petition for

discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the date

this Court overrules the last timely motion for rehearing filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.2. The

petition must be filed with this Court, after which it will be forwarded to the court of criminal

appeals along with the rest of the filings in the cause. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.3, 68.7. Any petition

for discretionary review should comply with rules 68.4 and 68.5 of the rules of appellate procedure.

See Tex. R. App. P. 68.4, 68.5. 

2

We have considered the record and counsel’s brief and agree that the appeal is

frivolous and without merit. We have reviewed the evidence presented to the jury and the

procedures that were observed and find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.

We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of conviction.1

___________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Puryear and Henson

Affirmed

Filed: April 8, 2009

Do Not Publish
# Table 4

# Sheet2

# Sheet3
*

 The Honorable Robert H. Cleland, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting

by designation.

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206

File Name: 07a0204p.06

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________

JUAN MARTINEZ-MARROQUIN,

Petitioner,

v.

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,

Respondent.

X

-

-

-

-

>

,

-

-

N

No. 06-4380

Filed: June 4, 2007 

Before: GIBBONS and COOK, Circuit Judges; CLELAND, District Judge.*

_________________

ORDER _________________

The petitioner seeks judicial review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

(“BIA”) denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings and rescind an immigration judge’s

in absentia order of removal. The petitioner’s proof brief was filed on March 26, 2007. The

respondent now moves to remand this case to the BIA to consider the issue of whether the petitioner

carried his burden to demonstrate that the in absentia order of removal should be rescinded pursuant

to 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii) because he did not receive notice of the removal hearing. The

petitioner does not oppose the motion. 

The effect of a remand is to render the BIA’s decision nonfinal “and hence not judicially

reviewable.” Ren v. Gonzales, 440 F.3d 446, 448 (7th Cir. 2006). A remand will not, however, result

in the loss of the petitioner’s right to judicial review. See Lopez-Ruiz v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 886, 887

(9th Cir. 2002). In view of the foregoing circumstances, we find the respondent’s motion to be well

taken. The petitioner is cautioned that if the BIA does not rule in his favor, a new timely petition for

review must be filed. 

The motion for remand is GRANTED. 

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

 /s/ Leonard Green

___________________________________ Clerk

1