alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           3,210
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             388
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                15,343
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          80,168
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            78,744
<LOANS>                                        123,335
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,268
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 230,156
<DEPOSITS>                                     197,351
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              5,466
<LONG-TERM>                                      6,930
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,499
<OTHER-SE>                                      17,910
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 230,156
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  6,580
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                3,674
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   350
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                10,604
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               6,181
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,663
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            3,941
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      605
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  2,285
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,402
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,402
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                        (128)
<NET-INCOME>                                       730
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .25
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.27
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,662
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         1
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,268
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,268
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RAFAEL SANCHEZ HERRERA, AKA 

Jose Luis Sanchez Herrera, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 17-72578 

Agency No. A095-739-942 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 4, 2019**

Pasadena, California

Before: KLEINFELD, Circuit Judge, COLE, Chief Circuit Judge,*** and 

NGUYEN, Circuit Judge.

Rafael Sanchez Herrera, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review 

of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an 

 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

*** The Honorable Ransey Guy Cole, Jr., Chief Circuit Judge for the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.

FILED

APR 3 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

immigration judge (“IJ”) order of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 

U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.

Aliens in immigration proceedings have a constitutional and statutory “right 

to be represented by counsel at [their] own expense.” Gomez-Velazco v. Sessions, 

879 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2018). We review for abuse of discretion the IJ’s

decision not to continue a hearing to allow additional time to find counsel. Arrey 

v. Barr, 916 F.3d 1149, 1158 (9th Cir. 2019). An IJ’s failure to “inquire 

specifically as to whether [the] petitioner wishes to continue without a lawyer” or 

“receive a knowing and voluntary affirmative response” may constitute an abuse of 

discretion. Tawadrus v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1099, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004).

Here, in finding that Sanchez Herrera had “not demonstrated good cause for 

additional time to look for an attorney,” the IJ assumed that Sanchez Herrera 

wanted one to represent him at the merits hearing. In light of this assumption, the 

IJ’s failure to ask if Sanchez Herrera wanted to proceed without an attorney was 

not an abuse of discretion.

Sanchez Herrera was given a 26-day continuance to find counsel. Although

he was in custody and primarily spoke Spanish, his sister was a U.S. citizen. The 

continuance provided Sanchez Herrera sufficient time to obtain counsel to 

represent him at a bond hearing. Under these circumstances, 26 days was a 
3 

“reasonable time to locate counsel” for the merits hearing, Arrey, 916 F.3d at 1158, 

and the IJ’s denial of a second continuance was not an abuse of discretion.1

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

 

1 We reject, as unsupported, Sanchez Herrera’s bald assertion that he “was 

erroneously placed in removal proceedings.” See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8); 

Tamayo-Tamayo v. Holder, 725 F.3d 950, 952 (9th Cir. 2013).
INTRODUCTION TO OSHRC E-FILING 

OSHA Area Offices 

Version 9-2016
2 

1. Go to the OSHRC website (www.oshrc.gov) and select the option for “Electronic

Filing.” The link will take you to a page that will allow you to self-register with the

system.

2. For first-time users, select the “Register” button, which will take you to the

following screen (you need only register once). All fields marked with are

required fields. You will identify your “Contact Type” as OSHA Area Office (see

below)

Version 9-2016
3 

Version 9-2016
4 

3. After you register, you will receive an email confirming your registration and 

providing you with your credentials. Your logon ID will be the email account that 

you registered with and your temporary password will be included in the email.

4. The “Contact Type” you have selected will determine the layout of your home

screen. For OSHA Area Offices, see below.

Version 9-2016
5 

5. In order to submit the Notice of Contest to initiate a new case, you will select the

upper left-hand box. You will see the following:
6 

a. Fill in all of the required fields. If the Inspection Number is already in the

system, you will receive an error message.

b. Next add the Notice of Contest, Citation and Notification of Penalty along

with any other documents to be filed. To attach the files select the “Browse”

button, locate the files on your PC, and select Insert. Once all files are

attached select Complete Submission.

c. Once the data has been uploaded to the system you will receive an

acknowledgement stating that you have successfully filed the Notice of

Contest, as well as an email confirmation.

Version 9-2016
7 

6. To submit additional documents, select “File a New Document in a Pending

OSHRC Case.”

a. Search using the OSHA Inspection Number, select the pending case and press

“OK.”

b. Upload the document (browse pc and select files) then press “submit.”

Version 9-2016
8 

c. Once accepted by the Office of the Executive Secretary, you will receive an email

confirmation.

d. You must be listed as an active contact to file documents in pending and

docketed cases.

Version 9-2016
9 

e. A submission that is incomplete may be rejected, requiring you to

resubmit the document. The rejection message will explain what is

required.

Any questions regarding use of the system should be e-mailed to MP.Support@oshrc.gov

Version 9-2016
```

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Page S10931]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                            MORNING BUSINESS

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
now proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to 
speak for up to 10 minutes each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Connecticut.

                          ____________________
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,951
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                22,650
<PP&E>                                          50,595
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,789
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  78,739
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,396
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      14,291
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    78,739
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                80,761
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   75,441
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,350
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,825
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    970
<INCOME-TAX>                                       728
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                242
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       242
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.05
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 84 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 84

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
    United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of 
    Transportation relating to ``Metropolitan Planning Organization 
                Coordination and Planning Area Reform''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 1, 2017

Mr. Lewis of Minnesota submitted the following joint resolution; which 
   was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
    United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of 
    Transportation relating to ``Metropolitan Planning Organization 
                Coordination and Planning Area Reform''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Department of Transportation relating to 
``Metropolitan Planning Organization Coordination and Planning Area 
Reform'' (81 Fed. Reg. 93448 (December 20, 2016)), and such rule shall 
have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

November 23, 2009 

1116 

Order 

 

November 23, 2009 

139169 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 139169 

 COA: 278834 

Jackson CC: 06-004125-FH 

LONNIE RAY GREENE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 7, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
# Official Journal C 44/6 Fe

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 44 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 586 February 2015 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 44

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 586 February 2015

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2015/C 044/01 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2015/C 044/01

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  )

1

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2015/C 044/02 | State aid — Luxembourg — State aid SA.38944 (2014/C) (2014/NN) — Alleged aid to Amazon — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (
  1
  ) | 13 |
| 2015/C 044/03 | State aid — Italy — State aid SA.21420 (2014/C) (ex 2014/NN) (ex 2013/PN) — Setting up of Airport Handling — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (
  1
  ) | 30 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2015/C 044/02

State aid — Luxembourg — State aid SA.38944 (2014/C) (2014/NN) — Alleged aid to Amazon — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (
  1
  )

1

13

2015/C 044/03

State aid — Italy — State aid SA.21420 (2014/C) (ex 2014/NN) (ex 2013/PN) — Setting up of Airport Handling — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (
  1
  )

1

30

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 21
                                                                      ----------


                    ALBERTO-CULVER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

                        Subsidiaries of the Registrant



                                                        State or
                                                         Other
                                                      Jurisdiction
                                                           of
        Subsidiary                                    Incorporation
        ----------                                    -------------

Alberto-Culver (Australia) Pty. Ltd.                  Australia
Alberto-Culver Canada, Inc.                           Canada
Alberto-Culver Company (U.K.), Limited                United Kingdom
Alberto-Culver International, Inc.                    Delaware
Alberto-Culver de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.                Mexico
Alberto-Culver (P.R.), Inc.                           Delaware
Alberto-Culver USA, Inc.                              Delaware
BDM Grange, Ltd.                                      New Zealand
Cederroth International AB                            Sweden
CIFCO, Inc.                                           Delaware
Indola Cosmetics, B.V.                                The Netherlands
Indola SpA                                            Italy
La Farmaco Argentina I. y C.S.A.                      Argentina
Sally Beauty Company, Inc.                            Delaware
St. Ives Laboratories, Inc.                           Delaware


Subsidiaries of the company omitted from the above table, considered in the
aggregate, would not be considered significant.
1 C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Cause No. 01

- 1 2

- 0 1082

- C V ; In re H.L.B., T.K.B., and C.L.B.

On Appeal from the 3 13 th District Court of Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2010

- 01752J

On March 15, 2013

, Julie A. Ketterman , counsel for appellant, filed in this Court a “ Third

Motion to Extend the Deadline for Filing Appellant’s Brief. ” In support of her request, counsel

references other professional obligations such as an appellate brief due in February, “several

multi

- day hearings in other family law cases,” and preparation for a jury trial. Ketterman further

states that she “has nearly completed resea rching and preparing her brief.”

A ppellant’s motion for a third extension of time for an additional thirty days to file

appellant’s brief is denied. Appellant is ordered to file h er brief by 5:00 p.m. on March 27 , 20 13

. If appellant’s brief is not file d, we will abate the appeal for the appointment of new appellate

counsel.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Terry Jennings

 Acting individually ☐ Acting for the Court

Panel consists of :

Date: M a rch 19, 20 1 3
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 33 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 33

   Designating the George C. Marshall Museum and George C. Marshall 
  Research Library in Lexington, Virginia, as the National George C. 
                      Marshall Museum and Library.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 15, 2017

  Mr. Goodlatte (for himself, Mr. Beyer, Mr. Brat, Mrs. Comstock, Mr. 
    Connolly, Mr. Garrett, Mr. Griffith, Mr. McEachin, Mr. Scott of 
    Virginia, Mr. Taylor, and Mr. Wittman) submitted the following 
concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Education 
                           and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
   Designating the George C. Marshall Museum and George C. Marshall 
  Research Library in Lexington, Virginia, as the National George C. 
                      Marshall Museum and Library.

Whereas General George C. Marshall served as Army Chief of Staff during World 
        War II, Special Ambassador to China, Secretary of State, and Secretary 
        of Defense;
Whereas General George C. Marshall was promoted to General of the Army in 1944, 
        one of only five Army five-star generals in the history of the United 
        States;
Whereas General George C. Marshall was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal in 
        1946 for his military strategy and vital role during World War II;
Whereas General George C. Marshall was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1953 for 
        developing the European economic recovery strategy known as the Marshall 
        Plan;
Whereas the George C. Marshall Foundation was established in 1953 and is devoted 
        to preserving the legacy of General George C. Marshall through 
        educational scholarship programs and facilities;
Whereas the George C. Marshall Foundation opened the George C. Marshall Museum 
        and George C. Marshall Research Library in 1964 in Lexington, Virginia, 
        on the post of the Virginia Military Institute, which is the alma mater 
        of General George C. Marshall;
Whereas the George C. Marshall Museum educates the public about the military and 
        diplomatic contributions of General George C. Marshall through extensive 
        exhibits; and
Whereas the George C. Marshall Research Library maintains the most comprehensive 
        collection of records documenting the life and leadership of General 
        George C. Marshall: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That Congress designates the George C. Marshall Museum and George C. 
Marshall Research Library in Lexington, Virginia, as the National 
George C. Marshall Museum and Library.
                                 <all>
```