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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JAVIER MALDONADO MARTINEZ, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 18-70206 

Agency No. A095-300-405 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 6, 2020**

Before: BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

Javier Maldonado Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for 

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

from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his motion to reopen based on

ineffective assistance of counsel. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 

We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

FILED

MAY 13 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-70206 

Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Maldonado Martinez’s 

motion to reopen as untimely where his motion was filed nearly ten years after the 

IJ’s November 26, 2007, in absentia removal order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), 

and Maldonado Martinez failed to establish the due diligence required to warrant 

tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 677 (9th Cir. 

2011) (equitable tolling is available to a petitioner who is prevented from filing 

because of deception, fraud or error, and exercised due diligence in discovering 

such circumstances).

Maldonado Martinez has not shown a legal or constitutional error behind the 

BIA’s decision denying his motion to reopen sua sponte. See Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 

F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
EXHIBIT
      10.11


Board
      of
      Director Fees





The
      following table sets forth the director fees for 2006 and 2007:





**2006**
            
            **2007**Annual
                Retainer
            
            $5,000
            
            $5,000Board
                Meetings
            
            $670
                per meeting
            
            $670
                per meetingAudit
                Committee Meetings
            
            $300
                per meeting
            
            $300
                per meetingAll
                Other Committee Meetings
            
            $200
                per meeting
            
            $200
                per meetingChairman’s
                Annual Salary*
            
            N/A
            
            N/AVice
                Chairman’s Annual Salary*
            
            $5,000
            
            $5,000





*These
      salaries only apply to independent outside directors; this payment will not
      apply for the Chairman in 2007 as that position is filled by Mark D. Gainer
      who
      also serves as President and Chief Executive Officer of Union National Financial
      Corporation.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1206

EDWARD E. STROUPE, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, Chief District Judge. (1:07-cv-00090-jpj-pms)

Submitted: November 24, 2009 Decided: December 28, 2009

Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward E. Stroupe, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Shawn C. Carver, Robert W. Kosman, Assistant Regional Counsel, Taryn F. Jasner, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Edward E. Stroupe, Jr., appeals the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
affirming the final decision of the Commissioner of Social
Security that Stroupe was not entitled to supplemental security

income. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court. See Stroupe v. Astrue , No. 1:07-cv-00090-jpjpms (W.D. Va. Feb. 9, 2009). We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**Exhibit15.01**

 

May 10, 2004

 

 

Securities and Exchange Commission

450 Fifth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20549

 

Commissioners:

 

We are aware that our report dated April 19, 2004, except Note 14 as towhich the date is May 7, 2004, on our review of interim financial informationof WellPoint Health Networks Inc. for the three-month periods ended March 31,2004 and 2003 and included in the Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q forthe quarter ended March 31, 2004 is incorporated by reference in its RegistrationStatements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-112933, 333-05111, 333-33013, 333-42073,333-81687, 333-90791, 333-37958, 333-55314, 333-81872, 333-103481, 333-83462and 333-109097), Form S-3 (File Nos. 333-08519 and 333-101475) and Form S-4(File Nos. 333-73382, 333-106689 and 333-108132).

 

 
| Very truly yours,              |
|--------------------------------|
|                           |
| /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP |   |
| PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP     |

 

----
1 

### Ostigaard, Crystal

From: aponrick@msn.com Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 10:17 PM To: Ostigaard, Crystal Subject: Designate Yellowstone County, Montana, as a non-att ainment area for air quality.

Yellowstone County should be designated as a non- a ttainment location to legally address and improve the higher than deemed healthy levels of d angerous airborne emissions.

All business should be held to the same standards t o minimize identified harmful emissions.

Alan Ponrick Billings, MT Yellowstone County
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001013149
<NAME> ICT GROUP, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997             MAR-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1                       1
<CASH>                                          16,651                  18,298
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,404                  13,539
<ALLOWANCES>                                       262                     212
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                33,423                  32,805
<PP&E>                                          24,325                  21,270
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,446                   9,638
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  51,980                  49,112
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,643                   5,739
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                           116                     115
<OTHER-SE>                                      41,362                  40,905
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    51,980                  49,112
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                20,492                  16,220
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,415                   8,767
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,381                   6,754
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    59                      42
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (138)                     233
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    775                     424
<INCOME-TAX>                                       302                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                473                     424
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                       473                     424
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.04                    0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.04                    0.03
        



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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ECHOSTAR SATELLITE BROADCASTING CORPORATION FOR THE
NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO THOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY 
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          23,473
<SECURITIES>                                     3,252
<RECEIVABLES>                                   56,261
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,803
<INVENTORY>                                     23,050
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               156,018
<PP&E>                                         563,299
<DEPRECIATION>                                  72,986
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 954,685
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          232,250
<BONDS>                                        950,047
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (244,033)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   954,685
<SALES>                                        263,338<F1>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               280,123
<CGS>                                          156,076<F2>
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  458,184
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                60,202
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,714
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              63,681<F3>
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (238,233)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        64
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (238,297)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (238,297)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                (238,297)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (238,297)
<FN>
<F1>INCLUDES SALES OF PROGRAMMING.
<F2>INCLUDES COSTS OF PROGRAMMING.
<F3>NET OF AMOUNTS CAPITALIZED.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-7685

DERRICK HARRELL, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

 v. 

ANTHONY HATHAWAY, 

 Respondent - Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, 

Senior District Judge. (5:07-hc-02052-H) 

Submitted: March 6, 2009 Decided: April 8, 2009 

Before MICHAEL, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Derrick Harrell, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, 

Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

Derrick Harrell seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying his post-judgment motion, construed by the court 

as a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), seeking 

reconsideration of the court’s order dismissing as untimely 

Harrell’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not 

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) 

(2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this 

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find 

that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district 

court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural 

ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. 

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 

683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). 

On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised 

in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Harrell’s brief 

alleges no error committed by the district court in denying his 

motion, and we discern none. Accordingly, we deny a certificate 

of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

2 
3 

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
* Pursuant to 5TH 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-20324

Summary Calendar

 

GERALD T. ARMSTRONG,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

L.W. ZOHN, Sergeant; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; RONNIE LOPEZ; 

DENNIS GONDY; LISA JOHNSON; GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, 

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

Respondents-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-97-CV-2163

- - - - - - - - - -

December 7, 1998

Before KING, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gerald Thomas Armstrong (#768439), a state prisoner, has

requested a certificate of appealability (“COA”) authorizing an

appeal from the district court’s order construing his civil

rights action as an application for a writ of habeas corpus. The

district court dismissed the habeas claims because Armstrong had

failed to obtain leave of this court to file a second or

successive habeas application. Armstrong v. Johnson, No. H-97-

2163 (S.D. Tex. March 16, 1998) (unpublished). To the extent 
No. 98-20324

-2-

 

** Armstrong has not briefed any issue related the district

court’s order dismissing his claim challenging the validity of

the parole-revocation proceedings. Accordingly, the claim is

abandoned. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner,

813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). 

that Armstrong had raised a civil rights claim, the district

court held that the claim must be dismissed under the rule in

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Id. 

Armstrong contends that he was unlawfully arrested prior to

the revocation of his supervised release and that he should be

permitted to pursue his wrongful-arrest claim under § 1983.**

Applying the reasoning of our opinion in Mackey v. Dickson, 47

F.3d 744, 746 (5th Cir. 1995), we hold that the dismissal of this

claim was premature. See also Montoya v. Scott, 65 F.3d 405, 421

(5th Cir. 1995). Because the appeal is from an order dismissing

a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, COA is DENIED AS UNNECESSARY. We

VACATE the district court’s judgment dismissing the wrongfularrest claim and REMAND the case for further proceedings. 

COA DENIED AS UNNECESSARY; VACATED AND REMANDED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ECHOSTAR SATELLITE BROADCASTING CORPORATION AS
OF AND FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO THOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          29,894
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   98,344
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,272
<INVENTORY>                                     53,540
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               188,417
<PP&E>                                         646,801
<DEPRECIATION>                                 112,609
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,001,872
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          340,556
<BONDS>                                      1,034,372
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (398,716)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,001,872
<SALES>                                        449,819<F1>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               460,188
<CGS>                                          280,235<F2>
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  488,956
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                55,881
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 4,900
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              57,305<F3>
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (84,649)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       283
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (84,932)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (84,932)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 (84,932)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (84,932)
<FN>
<F1>Includes sales of programming.
<F2>Includes costs of programming.
<F3>Net of amounts capitalized.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 264 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow charitable organizations to make statements relating to political campaigns if such statements are made in the ordinary course of carrying out its tax exempt 

purpose. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 1, 2017 

Mr. LANKFORD (for himself and Mr. PAUL) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow charitable organizations to make statements relating to political campaigns if such statements are made in the ordinary course of carrying out its tax exempt purpose. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘The Free Speech Fair5 ness Act’’. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 264 IS

1 SEC. 2. ALLOWING 501(c)(3) ORGANIZATION TO MAKE 

2 STATEMENTS RELATING TO POLITICAL CAM3 PAIGN IN ORDINARY COURSE OF CARRYING 

4 OUT ITS TAX EXEMPT PURPOSE. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 501 of the Internal Rev6 enue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the 

7 following new subsection: 

8 ‘‘(s) SPECIAL RULE RELATING TO POLITICAL CAM9 PAIGN STATEMENTS OF ORGANIZATION DESCRIBED IN

10 SUBSECTION (c)(3).— 

11 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of subsection 

12 (c)(3) and sections 170(c)(2), 2055, 2106, 2522, 

13 and 4955, an organization shall not fail to be treat14 ed as organized and operated exclusively for a pur15 pose described in subsection (c)(3), nor shall it be 

16 deemed to have participated in, or intervened in any 

17 political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) 

18 any candidate for public office, solely because of the 

19 content of any statement which— 

20 ‘‘(A) is made in the ordinary course of the 

21 organization’s regular and customary activities 

22 in carrying out its exempt purpose, and 

23 ‘‘(B) results in the organization incurring 

24 not more than de minimis incremental ex25 penses.’’. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 264 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 this section shall apply to taxable years ending after the 

3 date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
From: Boyd.Rochelle@epamail.epa.gov

Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 8:24 AM

To: Robert Strieter

Subject: RE: EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0031-0017[1].pdf - Adobe Reader

Thanks 

Rochelle Boyd, Environmental Engineer 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

Sector Policies and Programs Division 

109 T.W. Alexander Drive, RTP, NC 27711 

Mail Drop D243-02 

Ph: (919) 541-1390 Fax: (919) 541-3207 

Email: boyd.rochelle@epa.gov 

From: 

Robert Strieter <bstriete@aluminum.org> 

To: 

Rochelle Boyd/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Date: 

10/22/2010 08:22 AM 

Subject: 

RE: EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0031-0017[1].pdf - Adobe Reader

 Rochelle: 

 

We are looking into this and compiling data concerning the emissions variability for

HF from potline roof 

vents, etc, and hope to get back to you in the next week or so. 

 

Regards, 

Bob 

 

Bob Strieter 

VP - EHS 

The Aluminum Association 

bstriete@aluminum.org 

703 358-2980 

cell 571 224-6598 

1525 Wilson Blvd 

Suite 600 

Arlington, VA 22209 

SAVE THE DATE 

Spring Meeting: April 7-9, 2011 

Sanibel Harbour Marriott Resort & Spa 

Fort Meyers, Florida 

Follow us at: www.aluminum.org and on twitter.com/AluminumNews 

-----Original Message----- 

From: Boyd.Rochelle@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Boyd.Rochelle@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 12:53 PM 

To: Robert Strieter 

Cc: Michael.Palazzolo@alcoa.com 

Subject: EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0031-0017[1].pdf - Adobe Reader 

 

I am working on the Primary Aluminum RTR and the Risk Assessment Group plans to 

re-run the risk 

models in December and I noticed in the comments that the Association did not want 

us to use a factor 

of 10 for the acute exposure factors. In the absence of data this is the default 
value that they typically 

use. Do you have any data that we can use to support your argument for the 4 to 6 

times the average 

instead? We would have to do an Acute Effects technical support document to go 

along with whatever 

standard we propose as to why we chose the 4 or 6 factor. Thanks. 

Rochelle Boyd, Environmental Engineer 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

Sector Policies and Programs Division 

109 T.W. Alexander Drive, RTP, NC 27711 

Mail Drop D243-02 

Ph: (919) 541-1390 Fax: (919) 541-3207 

Email: boyd.rochelle@epa.gov