alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RAUL GALLEGOS-CARRILLO,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 06-75134

Agency No. A028-700-894

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 23, 2010** 

Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Raul Gallegos-Carrillo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal

from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.

FILED

AUG 31 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 06-75134

§ 1252. We review de novo questions of law and constitutional claims, Khan v.

Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 776 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the petition for review. 

Gallegos-Carrillo does not challenge the BIA’s determination that he is

removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) based on his 1996 conviction for

lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 14 years of age in violation of California

Penal Code § 288(a). 

Contrary to Gallegos-Carrillo’s contention, he is ineligible for relief under

former section 212(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (repealed 1996), because his ground of

removability lacks a statutory counterpart in a ground of inadmissibility. See 8

C.F.R. § 1212.3(f)(5); see also Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203, 1207 & 1208 n.7

(9th Cir. 2009) (en banc). 

Gallegos-Carrillo’s retroactivity and equal protection challenges to the

BIA’s denial of section 212(c) relief are foreclosed by Abebe, 554 F.3d at 1207 &

1208 n.7. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
IPCC Secretariat 

c/o WMO · 7 bis, Avenue de la Paix · C.P: 2300 · CH-1211 Geneva 2 · Switzerland 

telephone +41 22 730 8208 / 54 / 84 · fax +41 22 730 8025 / 13 · email IPCC-Sec@wmo.int · www.ipcc.ch

Geneva, 20 January 2010 

IPCC statement on the melting of Himalayan glaciers1

The Synthesis Report, the concluding document of the Fourth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (page 49) stated: “Climate change is expected to 

exacerbate current stresses on water resources from population growth and economic and land-use 

change, including urbanisation. On a regional scale, mountain snow pack, glaciers and small ice 

caps play a crucial role in freshwater availability. Widespread mass losses from glaciers and 

reductions in snow cover over recent decades are projected to accelerate throughout the 21st

century, reducing water availability, hydropower potential, and changing seasonality of flows in 

regions supplied by meltwater from major mountain ranges (e.g. Hindu-Kush, Himalaya, Andes), 

where more than one-sixth of the world population currently lives.” 

This conclusion is robust, appropriate, and entirely consistent with the underlying science and the 

broader IPCC assessment. 

It has, however, recently come to our attention that a paragraph in the 938-page Working Group II 

contribution to the underlying assessment2

 refers to poorly substantiated estimates of rate of 

recession and date for the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers. In drafting the paragraph in 

question, the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, 

were not applied properly.

The Chair, Vice-Chairs, and Co-chairs of the IPCC regret the poor application of well-established 

IPCC procedures in this instance. This episode demonstrates that the quality of the assessment 

depends on absolute adherence to the IPCC standards, including thorough review of “the quality 

and validity of each source before incorporating results from the source into an IPCC Report” 3. We 

reaffirm our strong commitment to ensuring this level of performance. 

 

1

 This statement is from the Chair and Vice-Chairs of the IPCC, and the Co-Chairs of the IPCC Working 

Groups. 

2

 The text in question is the second paragraph in section 10.6.2 of the Working Group II contribution and a 

repeat of part of the paragraph in Box TS.6. of the Working Group II Technical Summary of the IPCC 

Fourth Assessment Report. 

3

 This is verbatim text from Annex 2 of Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work.
* Pursuant to 5 TH CIR . 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 5TH CIR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED August 24, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-40266 Summary Calendar

DAVID LAUER, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION; BARRY TELFORD UNIT; UNKNOWN STEPHENS, Warden; UNKNOWN HUDSON, Warden; UNKNOWN RODEEN, Warden; UNKNOWN ODEM, Cpt; UNKNOWN MILES, Lieutenant; UNKNOWN WISNER, Lieutenant; TIA RANGE, Lieutenant; UNKNOWN COLEMAN, Sgt; UNKNOWN DELEVAN, mail personnel; UNKNOWN SHARP, mail personnel; UNKNOWN YBARRA, mail personnel; UNKNOWN RAYBURN, mail personnel; UNKNOWN CURRIE, mail room, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

(No. 5:02-CV-243)

-------------------- Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Plaintiff-Appellant David Lauer, Texas prisoner # 1069082, filed an interlocutory appeal of the district court’s denial of his motions for a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and protective order. After Lauer filed his interlocutory appeal, the district court dismissed his complaint with prejudice. Lauer2

argues in this appeal that the district court erred when it denied injunctive relief. We lack jurisdiction over the denial of an application for a temporary restraining order. See Faulder v. Johnson , 178 F.3d 741, 742 (5th Cir. 1999). As Lauer fails to argue that the district court erred when it denied his motion for a protective order, he has abandoned this issue. See Hughes v. Johnson , 191 F.3d 607, 613-14 (5th Cir. 1999). Thus, the only issue in this appeal is whether the district court erred when it denied Lauer’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Lauer fails to explain why his interlocutory appeal of the denial of injunctive relief has merit, even though the district court has now dismissed his lawsuit. He thus has not established a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. See Speaks v. Kruse , 445 F.3d 396, 399-400 (5th Cir. 2006). It is unnecessary for us to consider the remaining prerequisites for injunctive relief. See Walgreen Co. v. Hood , 275 F. 3d 475, 478 (5th Cir. 2001). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
*** Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During EO 12866 Review *** 

Reg Plan Costs and Benefits Table for Lead; Clearance and Clearance Testing Requirements for the Ren

Painting Program; Proposed Rule – SAN [XXXX]; RIN 2070-[XXXX] 

Units 

Category Primary Estimate Low Estimate High Estimate Year 

Dollars Disc Period Co

Benefits

Annualized Monetized Not estimated Not estimated Not estimated 7% $millions/year Not estimated Not estimated Not estimated 3% 

Not estimated Not estimated Not estimated 7% Annualized Quantified Not estimated Not estimated Not estimated 3% 

Qualitative:The rule would result in IQ benefits for children under age 6 and cardiovascular benefits for adults. There are 809,000 children undepregnant women, and 7,451,000 other individuals age 6 and older who would benefit from the rule. Costs

Annualized Monetized $293 million Not estimated Not estimated 2008 7% 2010 to 206$millions/year $272 million Not estimated Not estimated 2008 3% 2010 to 206

Not estimated Not estimated Not estimated 7% Annualized Quantified Not estimated Not estimated Not estimated 3% 

Qualitative Not estimated Transfers

Federal Annualized Monetized Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable 7% $millions/year Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable 3% 

From: To: 

Other Annualized Monetized Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable 7% $millions/year Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable 3% 

From: To: 

EffectsState, Local, and/or Tribal Government Localities and Tribes that operate child-occupied facilities and do their own renovation work for jobs covered by the rule will incur a s

not have a significant intergovernmental mandate, significant or unique affect on small governments, or have Federalism implication

Small BusinessOver 203,000 small entities impacted: approximately 100 small governments (average impact of 0.04%), about 200 small non-profi203,000 small businesses (average impact of 0.5%). Of these, 151,000 non-employer contractors (businesses) have estimated avWagesNot estimated GrowthNot estimated. Unlikely – rule costs are less than $1 billion per year. 

Source citation: Economic Analysis for the Proposed Dust Testing and Clearance Amendments to the TSCA Lead Renovation

Program for Target Housing and Child-Occupied Facilities, EO 12866 Review Draft, January 2010.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 1995 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                             200
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   39,200
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     55,300
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               153,800
<PP&E>                                       2,782,100
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,818,800
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,887,400
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          622,000
<BONDS>                                        299,200
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     607,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,887,400
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               540,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  190,900
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                87,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              41,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                159,800
<INCOME-TAX>                                    59,100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            100,700
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   100,700
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F1>
<FN>
<F1>Not meaningful since Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company is a wholly-owned
subsidiary.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
BEFORE THE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON, D.C.

____________________________________

In the matter of 2010 U.S.

- Haneda

Combination Services Allocation Proceeding Docket DOT

- OST

- 2010

- 0018

_____________________________________

ANSWER OF THE SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION OF UNITED AIRLINES, INC.

Communications with respect to this document should be addressed to:

John L. Martin

Airport Director

Kandace Bender

Deputy Airport Director

SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

P.O. Box 8097

San Francisco, California 94128

Phone: 650

- 821

- 5000

Kandace.Bender@flysfo.com

October 24 , 2013BE FORE THE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON, D.C.

____________________________________

In the Matter of 2010 U.S.

- Haneda Docket DOT

- OST

- 2010

- 0018

Combination Services Allocation Proceeding

_____________________________________

ANSWER OF THE SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION OF UNITED AIRLINES, INC.

San Francisco International Airport (“SFO”) strongly supports the October 17, 2013

application of United Airlines , Inc. ( “ United ” ) for one daily pair of U.S.

- Toky o Haneda

combination slots to initiate nonstop service from the Bay Area to Tokyo’s close

- in airport, in

light of American Airline s ’ reported decision to terminate its New York

- Haneda service in just

six weeks. Awarding the slots to United will finally fu lfill the Bay Area’s longstanding and

uniquely strong need for U.S. airline service to this key Tokyo airport.

For years, SFO has repeatedly petitioned the Department of Transportation to enable U.S.

carrier service between Haneda and the vast Bay Area market

– with its robust proportion of

time

- sensitive business travelers seeking the convenience of access to the downtown Tokyo

airport. Nonetheless, SFO remains the only top West Coast market without U.S. carrier service

to Haneda. Even aside from the demonstrable needs of the Bay Area market itself, as SFO setforth a year ago in this docket in its Answer in Support of United’s Application and in its

Objection (dated September 6, 2012 and Nov ember 26, 2012

, respectively), allocating Haneda

slots for U.S. airline service to SFO’s extensive and comprehensive transpacific West Coast hub

greatly enhances the convenience of Tokyo access for millions of travelers from more than 90

other cities.

SF O respectfully urges the Department to act as soon as possible to maximize the public

benefits of Haneda slots by enabling United to initiate that important service as it proposes in its

October 17, 2013 Application.

Respectfully submitted,

/s / Kandace Bender

John L. Martin

Airport Director

Kandace Bender

Deputy Airport Director

San Francisco International Airport

Kandace.bender@flysfo.com

DATED: October 24 , 2 013
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 174 (Monday, September 9, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 73129]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-20233]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Agency Information Collection Activities; National Survey of 
College Graduates

ACTION: Correction.

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

SUMMARY: The National Science Foundation (NSF) published a document in 
the Federal Register of September 4, 2024, concerning a request for 
public comment on the 2025 National Survey of College Graduates with 
the wrong survey title.

Corrections

    In the Federal Register published September 4, 2024, in FR Doc. 
2024-19850 (Filed 9-3-24), on page 71938, first column, under 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title of Collection, please change the title 
to 2025 National Survey of College Graduates. All other details remain 
unchanged.

    Dated: September 4, 2024.
Suzanne H. Plimpton,
Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation.
[FR Doc. 2024-20233 Filed 9-6-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
##### 



Exhibit 32.1

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

In connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of
MeriStar Hospitality Corporation (the Issuer) for
the three months ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Paul W. Whetsell, Chief Executive
Officer of the Issuer, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 (15 U.S.C 78m or
    78o(d)); and     
|
| | 2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
    material respects, the financial condition and results of
    operations of the Issuer.

Date: May 10, 2004



| |                                 
| | --------------------------------
| | /s/ PAUL W. WHETSELL            
| | Paul W. Whetsell                
| | Chief Executive
    Officer     
| | MeriStar Hospitality Corporation
WRAP TSS as of 7/15/09Plan02d(tpy)PRP18b(tpy)Net ChangeFrom Plan02d toPRP18b(Percent)Point 104 180 73Area 304 335 10On-Road Mobile 443 86 -81Off-Road Mobile 1,986 1,161 -42Oil & Gas 0 0 0Road Dust 2 2 0Fugitive Dust 7 9 29Windblown Dust 0 0 0Anthro Fire 298 153 -49Source CategoryStatewide ECWyoming Planning and Preliminary Reasonable ProgressEmission InventoriesWyoming EC Emission Inventory - 2002 and 2018to e98539Natural Fire 4,922 4,922 0Biogenic 0 0 0Total8,066 6,848 -15Region Scenario Year Point Anthro FireNaturalFire All Fire Biogenic AreaWRAP AreaO&G Off-ShoreOn-RoadMobileOff-RoadMobileRoadDustFugitiveDust WB DustElemental CarbonWY Plan02d 2002 103.87 297.947 4922.072 303.62 0 443.325 1986.365 1.8475 6.55WY Prp18b 2018 179.82 153.275 4922.075 335.03 0 86.3425 1160.54 2.38 9.06
#### Willie JONES, Appellant, v. MOTOR INVESTMENT CO., Appellee.

No. 3692.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont.

May 23, 1940.

James D. O’Connor, of Dallas, for appellant.

Cecil E. Wright, of Dallas, for appellee.

WALKER, Chief Justice.

This appeal was prosecuted from County Court of Dallas County at Law, No. One, to the Dallas Court of Civil Appeals. The case is on our docket by order of transfer by the Supreme Court. The amount in controversy is $228. On authority of Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. Futch, Tex.Civ.App., 127 S.W.2d 1040, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed without written opinion.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       6,279,429
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                            12,400,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 11,599,745
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      17,032,171
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        17,058,242
<LOANS>                                    106,120,722
<ALLOWANCE>                                  1,027,248
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             156,907,509
<DEPOSITS>                                 142,384,336
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            716,546
<LONG-TERM>                                    442,365
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     5,767,614
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,596,648
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             156,907,509
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              2,363,603
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              467,670
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                84,865
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             2,916,138
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           1,318,754
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,328,347
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        1,587,791
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   65,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              1,275,461
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                392,539
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     392,539
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   233,634
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .09
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.34
<LOANS-NON>                                     59,443
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               982,198     
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   20,250
<RECOVERIES>                                       300
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            1,027,248
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         1,027,248
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           5,003
<SECURITIES>                                    21,243
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,465
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,130
<INVENTORY>                                        743
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                39,303
<PP&E>                                          10,735
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  52,986
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,565
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           127
<OTHER-SE>                                      43,447
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    52,986
<SALES>                                         37,906
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                37,906
<CGS>                                           29,204
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   36,556
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (260)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,610
<INCOME-TAX>                                       706
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                904
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       453
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.04
        

</TABLE>