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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MAGALY GUADALUPE MORALESCALDERON, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 18-71223 

Agency No. A209-285-746 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 18, 2019**

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Magaly Guadalupe Morales-Calderon, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order 

dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her motion to 

reconsider the denial of her motion to reopen proceedings conducted in absentia. 

* 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

NOV 25 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-71223 

Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of 

discretion the denial of motions to reopen or reconsider, and review de novo 

questions of law. Toor v. Lynch, 789 F.3d 1055, 1059 (9th Cir. 2015). We deny in 

part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Morales-Calderon’s 

motion to reconsider, where she did not identify any errors of law or fact in the IJ’s

denial of her motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(2) (“A motion to 

reconsider shall state the reasons for the motion by specifying the errors of fact or 

law in the [IJ]’s prior decision and shall be supported by pertinent authority.”).

To the extent the IJ erred in not considering the evidence Morales-Calderon 

attached to her motion to reconsider, any error was rendered harmless by the BIA

also construing the motion to reconsider as a second motion to reopen based on 

newly submitted evidence. See Singh v. Holder, 591 F.3d 1190, 1199 (9th Cir.

2010) (any error by the IJ was rendered harmless by the BIA’s de novo review of

the issue). Morales-Calderon has not raised, and therefore waives, any challenge 

to the BIA’s denial of the motion, construed as a second motion to reopen, as 

number-barred. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 

2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in an opening brief are waived).

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of sua sponte reopening, 

where Morales-Calderon has not raised a claim of legal or constitutional error 
3 18-71223 

underlying the agency’s decision. See Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th 

Cir. 2016).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
HO& J. N* uau1awlx, f%g,e 2 
Eon., 2. 15. fiaulaw~n, Ptiga 3 

Bon. 2. %. i:~%ulmln, Psg49 5 
aon, x. If. ntiuL&in, PSKQ 6 

The voter boo nothing t6"Uo with the m&l 

Or th0 bfI;.iOt, but ii; r8f&1?6d t0 US6 it, %Fp 

order to exeralso his right to tot%. He OQIZ 

only r&e for those ?&me IMMB me printed 

on It or strike them out and fnnort others. 

me Iscrllot cofx-:Y to hir: rr0fi tt.e ofriosrti or 

the &IV, rtgulw oz its Zace end aothentioated; 

both by the printiw,on tt and by l-J& sigruturs 

of t&u fulige of election, 88 the bnllot he 

ia zequuired to use. 1r it la ic ttio pow6r at 

tho Li:fiisietura tothus impose 0;) voters in 

szcrcisini~~ their aom5tltutiou6l rlgtit, the 

nsoesaity of votlq t:aketn prspare6 fr:r then 

in advmmas, ati gut to def6at their 6holo6, not 

for eat or daoion or iihelr own, but because 

of an anteoe~dent der0UotloIl or thr curioars 

~ppt@,ntei! by law to prepme the ballota, 

oerta%Qly no parposa to a0 00 con be illlpu~ 

to.tk6 Legialeture nithaut tbs aleare& 

Sxgntdrd on. ' 

' *In 8h~ oeue of Gallagbeir v. Ghuroh, thie 

court held t&it a ramcra to xnrk the word *voted* 

in,thela would dispose'oi every act 6f 8&isoandut& 

allege& egalxtet the 0Wbe~rs otoleotio5 in 

th@ reje0tfd 0sotloQ, X?o. 6, exa*pt those in 

rq&rtl to P tailor% ei aha presiding 

to.plaoe their siemtore8 upon the ba f 

udg%s 

lota 1x1 

cortala preainota end numbu than.*.
<PAGE>   1




                                                                   EXHIBIT 21.1




                              COHO ENERGY, INC.
                             LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES



Coho Resources Limited, Alberta, Canada (100% owned subsidiary) 

Coho Resources, Inc., Nevada (owned 51% by Coho Resources Limited and 49% by
Coho Energy, Inc.) 

Coho Marketing and Transportation, Inc., Nevada (100% subsidiary of Coho
Resources, Inc.) 

Coho Shell Company, Delaware (100% owned subsidiary) 

Profile Petroleum Limited, Alberta, Canada (100% subsidiary of Coho Resources
Limited) 

Grayon Developments Limited, Alberta, Canada (100% subsidiary of Coho Resources
Limited) 

Coho International Limited, Bahamas (100% subsidiary of Coho Resources Limited) 

Coho Anaguid, Inc., Delaware (100% subsidiary of Coho Resources, Inc.) 

Interstate Natural Gas Company, Delaware (100% subsidiary of Coho Resources,
Inc.) 

Coho Exploration, Inc., Delaware (owned 100% by Interstate Natural Gas Company) 

Coho Louisiana Production Company, Delaware (owned 100% by Interstate Natural
Gas Company) 

Coho Fairbanks Gathering Company, Delaware (owned 100% by Interstate Natural
Gas Company) 

Coho Louisiana Gathering Company, Delaware (owned 100% by Interstate Natural
Gas Company)
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No.96-50241 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ADRIAN J. CROOK, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. MO-95-CR-54 (2) October 11, 1996 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, JONES and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Counsel for Adrian J. Crook has filed a brief as required by Anders v. Californ i a , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Our independent review of the brief and record discloses no
nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, appointed counsel is dism issed from further responsibilities herein and the appeal is DISMISSED.2
EXHIBIT 32.1

I, Craig H. Barratt, the chief executive officer of Atheros Communications, Inc. (the Company), certify for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code that, to my knowledge,:



|(i) | The Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(ii) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: May 10, 2007



|                                                                                    
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Craig H. Barratt                                                                
|Craig H. Barratt President and Chief Executive
Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
State ofVermont [phone] 802-241-36oo Agency ofNatural Resources

Office ofthe Secretary [fax] 802-244-iio2 103South MainStreet, Center Building Waterbury,VTo567i-o3oi November 14, 2008 Robert W

. Varney Regional Administrator U .S. EPA Region I 1 Congress Street, Suite 1100 Boston, MA 02114-2023 Re: Vermont SIP Revisions Documenting RACT Requirements for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard Dear Regional Administrator Varney: ,Please find enclosed revisions to Vermont's State Implementation Plan (SIP) documenting that Vermont meets the Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. On July 18, 1997, the U .S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revised the National AmbientAir Quality Standard for ozone from0 .12 ppm measured over a 1-hour period to 0 .08 ppm measured over an 8-hour averaging period (62 FR 38856) . Due to subsequent legal challenges, F*PA did not issue formal designations and classifications for the 8-hour ozone standard until April 15, 2004 with an effective date ofJune 15, 2004 (69 FR23858) . On November 29, 2005, EPAadopted a final rule to implement the 8-hour ozone standard (70 FR 71612) . This rule required states with nonattainment areas to submit SIPs by June 15, 2007 demonstrating how each nonattainment area would attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. The rule also required nonattainment areas and areas in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) to submit SIP revisions requiring RACT to meet the revised ozonestandards by September 15, 2006 . EPAdesignated all counties in Vermontas "attainment" for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. However, Vermont is part ofthe OzoneTransport Region (OTR) under Section 184ofthe Clean Air Act and was therefore required to submit SIP revisions to meet the RACT requirements for the 8- hour ozone standard. On March 24, 2008, EPA published in the Federal Register a finding that Vermont had failed to submit the SIP revisions required for the 1997 8-hour ozone RACT requirements (73 FR 15416) . Although delayed, this SIP submittal does not have any substantive effect on air quality because the required RACT controls on the applicable sources in Vermont have been required by rules, permits and/or administrative orders for many years.

.,or~®V ER1Y1O1N 1 Department ofFish &Wildlife . Department ofForests, Parks &Recreation . Department ofEnvironmental ConservationThis submittal package includes all the documentation for EPA to consider these SIP

revisions complete. Additionally, I trust that EPA will find that this submittal fulfills Vermont's obligations under the Clean Air Act to meet the RACT requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. Should you have questions about this submittal, please contact Richard Valentinetti, Director ofVermont's Air Pollution Control Division. Sincerely,

Enclosures (3) Cc: Dave Conroy, Chief, Air Programs Branch, EPA Region I Anne Arnold, Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, EPARegion I RichardValentinetti, Director, VermontAir Pollution Control Division
| Name of Subsidiary                                         |   | Country of Incorporation                    |
|------------------------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------|
| SQM      Industrial S.A.                                   |   | Chile                                       |
| SQM      Nitratos S.A.                                     |   | Chile                                       |
| SQM      Salar S.A.                                        |   | Chile                                       |
| Minera      Nueva Victoria S.A.                            |   | Chile                                       |
| Servicios      Integrales de Transito y Transferencia S.A. |   | Chile                                       |
| Soquimich      Comercial S.A.                              |   | Chile                                       |
| SQM      North America Corp.                               |   | USA                                         |
| SQM      Europe N.V.                                       |   |       Belgium |

----
----

**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 Tari Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, 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 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. |

Date:  November 14, 2008

/s/  Theodore Tsagkaris

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

Theodore Tsagkaris

Secretary, Treasurer & C.F.O.

(Principal Financial Officer and

Principal Accounting Officer)

----
________________________________________
                    [LOGO] PORTA SYSTEMS
                                   CORP.
________________________________________
________________________________________
                      EDWARD B. KORNFELD
        SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OPERATIONS
                 CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER




Via Facsimile
516-671-6715

July 21, 2003

Mr. William V. Carney
5 Willada Lane
Glen Cove, New York 11542

Re.: Furlough

Dear Bill,

On July 16, 2003 you agreed to take a thirteen-week furlough beginning July 21
and ending October 17, 2003. Your salary and the other employee benefits for
this period will be added onto the end of your current amended employment
agreement, dated December 13, 2002, so that the new termination date will be
March 13, 2006.

During this thirteen-week period, you will continue to receive your current
employee benefits. You will be invoiced monthly for the health, dental and life
insurance premiums as you are currently paying through payroll withholding.

If you agree to the above, please countersign a copy of this letter and return
it to my attention.

Sincerely yours,                                Agreed:


/s/ Edward B. Kornfeld                          /s/ William V. Carney
Edward B. Kornfeld                              --------------------------------
Senior Vice President Operations                William V. Carney
Chief Financial Officer


Cc:   Robert H. Davies, Managing Director
      Warren H. Esanu, Esq., Esanu Katsky Korins & Siger




    6851 Jericho Turnpike - Syosset - New York 11791 - Tel. (516) 364-9300 -
                               Fax (516) 682-4655
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JOSE E. PINEDA PAZ,

Appellant,

v. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-23-00296-CR

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 13

of Bexar County, Texas

Cause No. 709327

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified 

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 25TH DAY OF JULY 2024.

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

Before Alley, C.J., Palafox and Soto, JJ.
#### BARKER v. WEST PUB. CO.

No. 35957.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

March 2, 1954.

Rehearing Denied March 23, 1954.

*249Norman Barker, Tulsa, pro se.

Joe N. Shidler, Tulsa, for defendant in error.

O’NEAL, Justice.

West Publishing Company, hereinafter called plaintiff, brought an action against Norman Barker,- defendant, for-$220, unpaid balance for books purchased from plaintiff on conditional sales contract. There was a trial to the jury and a verdict returned for the amount for which suit was brought and judgment entered thereon.

Thereafter an execution was issued and levy made upon certain books and the books have been sold and credit given upon the judgment.

After execution was levied the defendant filed a motion to quash and set asid? the levy on the ground that it was illegal and void. The trial court overruled the motion to quash and set aside the execution and defendant appeals.

Several assignments of error are made in the petition in error, among them, the property levied upon was exempt. In the brief of plaintiff in error there áre only two assignments of error supported by authorities. Under the rule announced in Railway Express Agency v. Stephens, 183 Okl. 615, 83 P.2d 858, the assignments of error not hereinafter mentioned are deemed waived for the reason that they have not been supported by argument and authorities.

Plaintiff in error first argues that it was necessary to appraise the property upon which levy was made. With this contention we cannot agree. So far as we have been able to discover 12 O.S.1951 § 759 is the only provision for appraisal of property. No other is cited and no case suggesting appraising of personal property before sale is furnished by the ’ plaintiff in error. All the authorities cited by him relate to the sale of real property which the statute covers specifically. This assignment of error is without merit.

Finally it is argued that the court of common pleas of Tulsa County was without authority to exercise equitable jurisdiction; and that the judgment rendered is a foreclosure of a lien—an action in equity. We must likewise hold that this argument is without merit.

Although plaintiff attaches to its petition a copy of a conditional sales contract plaintiff did not seek to foreclose a lien or to exercise any right under the conditional sales contract. The judgment obtained is a judgment at law for '$220. ■ The first mention of a conditional sales contract is in the order of sale after execution. The record does not contain any evidence and we are unable to determine whether the books levied upon are the same books covered by the conditional sales contract although both parties assume in their brief that they are. Since' the only assignments of error presented to this court are the failure to appraise the property, and that the trial court has no jurisdiction of the proceedings, any irregularity in proceeding after judgment, other than the failure to appraise is waived. There is no showing that the court attempted to foreclose a lien or otherwise exercise equitable jurisdiction.

Judgment affirmed.

JOHNSON, V. C. J., and WELCH, CORN, DAVISON, . WILLIAMS and BLACKBIRD, J'J., concur.
Exhibit 10.3


  


January 11, 2017


 


Debra W. Struhsacker


3610 Big Bend Lane


Reno, NV 89509


 


Re: Second Extension
Severance Compensation Agreement


 


Dear Debbie:


 


This letter serves to document the agreed
terms of the amendment and extension of the term of the Severance Compensation Agreement between you and Pershing Gold Corporation
dated as of September 19, 2013, as amended by the Letter Agreement dated August 15, 2016.


 


Severance Compensation Agreement Amendment:
The Severance Compensation Agreement dated September 19, 2013 is hereby amended as follows:


 


Section 2. Term. Shall be deleted
in its entirety and replaced with the following language:


 


This Agreement shall be amended by
the letter agreement between Employee and the Company dated January 11, 2017. This Agreement, as amended, shall be effective as
of January 11, 2017 and shall expire on December 31, 2017; provided, however, that the expiration of this agreement shall not affect
the Employee’s rights to receive any payments or benefits otherwise due as a result of a Separation from Service occurring
prior to the expiration of this agreement.


 


Please acknowledge your acceptance by signing
in the space provided.


 


	PERSHING GOLD CORPORATION	Accepted and agreed this 11th day of January 2017.




 


	By:	 /s/ Stephen D. Alfers	/s/Debra W. Struhsacker
	 	Stephen D. Alfers	Debra W. Struhsacker
	 	President and CEO	Senior Vice President
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4528 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]

<DOC>

                                                       Calendar No. 486
115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4528

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 26, 2018

            Received; read twice and placed on the calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To make technical amendments to certain marine fish conservation 
                   statutes, 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. BILLFISH CONSERVATION ACT OF 2012.

    Section 4(c)(1) of the Billfish Conservation Act of 2012 (16 U.S.C. 
1827a(c)(1)) is amended by inserting ``and retained'' after ``landed''.

SEC. 2. SHARK CONSERVATION ACT OF 2010.

    The Act entitled ``An Act to amend the High Seas Driftnet Fishing 
Moratorium Protection Act and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 
and Management Act to improve the conservation of sharks'', approved 
January 4, 2011 (Public Law 111-348; 124 Stat. 3668), is amended--
            (1) by striking section 104 and inserting the following:

``SEC. 104. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

    ``Nothing in this title or the amendments made by this title shall 
be construed as affecting, altering, or diminishing in any way the 
authority of the Secretary of Commerce to establish such conservation 
and management measures as the Secretary considers necessary and 
appropriate under sections 302(a)(3) and 304(g) of the Magnuson-Stevens 
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1852(a)(3), 
1854(g)).''; and
            (2) in section 1, by striking the item relating to section 
        104 and inserting the following:

``Sec. 104. Rule of construction.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 25, 2018.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
                                                       Calendar No. 486

115th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4528

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To make technical amendments to certain marine fish conservation 
                   statutes, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             June 26, 2018

            Received; read twice and placed on the calendar
```