alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 97-31163 Summary Calendar

_____________________

LIONEL GALLEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

BROWN & ROOT INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

(90-CV-2791)

_________________________________________________________________ July 14, 1998 Before SMITH, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Lionel Galley appeals the 23 October 1997 denial of his 13

August 1997 F E D

. R. C IV

. P. 60(b)(6) motion for relief from the

district court’s 12 January 1993 order dismissing his Jones Act

claim for want of prosecution. Galley contends that he is entitled

to such relief because the district court misled him into believing

that an order of dis missal had not been entered, and that the- 2 -

district court led him to believe that there was no time limit on

prosecuting his claim, once his initial complaint had been filed.

The record reveals that the district court did not abuse its

discretion in denying the Rule 60(b)(6) motion, s ee Lancaster v.

Presley , 35 F.3d 229, 231 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied , 514 U.S.

1026 (1995), in that Galley falls far short of demonstrating the

existence of “extraordinary circumstances” warranting such

extraord inary relief. S ee Government Fin. Servs. One Ltd.

Partnership v. Peyton Place, Inc. , 62 F.3d 767, 773-74 (5th Cir.

1995); Hester Int’l Corp. v. Federal Republic of Nigeria

, 879 F.2d

170, 174 (5th Cir. 1989).

AFFIRMED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SALVADOR CABRERA ARVIZO,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General,

Respondent.

No. 21-1389

Agency No.

A215-562-512

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 17, 2023**

Before: HAWKINS, S.R. THOMAS, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Salvador Cabrera Arvizo, a native and citizen of Mexico, challenges the 

decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to 

reopen and terminate his removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 

U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the agency’s denial of a motion 

* 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

JUL 21 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 21-1389

to terminate, Dominguez v. Barr, 975 F.3d 725, 734 (9th Cir. 2020), and to 

reopen, Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016).

Cabrera Arvizo’s contention that the defect in his Notice to Appear 

deprived the immigration judge of jurisdiction over his proceedings is foreclosed 

by United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187, 1188, 1193 (9th Cir. 2022) 

(en banc) (“[T]he failure of an NTA to include time and date information does 

not deprive the immigration court of subject matter jurisdiction.”). 

Because Cabrera Arvizo does not challenge the BIA’s determination that 

his motion was untimely, we do not address that issue. Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 

706 F.3d 1072, 1079–80 (9th Cir. 2013). 

Our jurisdiction to review BIA decisions denying sua sponte reopening is 

limited to “reviewing the reasoning behind the decisions for legal or 

constitutional error.” Bonilla, 840 F.3d at 588. Because Cabrera Arvizo has not 

demonstrated any legal or constitutional error, we lack jurisdiction. See Lona v. 

Barr, 958 F.3d 1225, 1235 (9th Cir. 2020) (“[T]here is nothing left for us to 

review.”).

The temporary stay or removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

PETITION DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
Fourth Department,

September, 1995

(September 29, 1995)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Todd Smith, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 456]

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject defendant’s contention that the prosecutor shifted the burden of proof during his summation. The prosecutor’s comments were a proper response to defense counsel’s summation *(see, People v Maisonet,*172 AD2d 274, *lv denied*78 NY2d 969; *People v Peralta,*172 AD2d 155, *lv denied*78 NY2d 925). Any impropriety in the prosecutor’s cross-examination of defendant was not so egregious that it deprived defendant of a fair trial *(see, People v Toumbis,*204 AD2d 1026; *People v Dawkins,*203 AD2d 957, 958, *lv denied*84 NY2d 824).

The trial court properly declined to grant a mistrial based upon a communication between two jurors and the employer of one of those jurors. Given the nature of the information discussed, there is no likelihood that defendant was prejudiced *(cf., People v Brown,*48 NY2d 388, 394; *People v Magnano,*175 AD2d 639, *lv denied*79 NY2d 860).

The testimony of the victim’s mother regarding the victim’s prompt complaint did not constitute bolstering *(see, People v McDaniel,*81 NY2d 10, 16-17; *People v Guerra,*174 AD2d 502, *lv denied*78 NY2d 1076). The other alleged instances of bolstering are not preserved for our review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to exercise our power to review them as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice *(see,*CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). We also decline to review the contention, raised for the first time on appeal, that the trial court exhibited partiality in its rulings and comments to defense counsel *(see, People v Charleston,*56 NY2d 886, 887). The sentence imposed is not unduly harsh or severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Henry, Jr., J. — Sexual Abuse, 1st Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Wesley, Davis and Boehm, JJ. (Filed Aug. 29, 1995.)
Exhibit 4.1


 


Advisors Asset Management, Inc.

18925 Base Camp Road

Monument, Colorado 80132


October 27, 2020


 


Advisors Disciplined Trust 2040


c/o The Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee


BNY Atlantic Terminal


2 Hanson Place, 12th Floor


Brooklyn, New York 11217


 


Re: Advisors Disciplined Trust 2040 (the “Fund”)


Ladies and Gentlemen:


We have examined
the Registration Statement File No. 333-239868 for the above captioned Fund. We hereby consent to the use in the Registration Statement
of the references to Advisors Asset Management, Inc. as evaluator.


You are hereby authorized
to file a copy of this letter with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


 


	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 	 
	 	Advisors Asset Management, Inc.
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	By	/s/ ALEX R. MEITZNER
	 	 	Alex R. Meitzner
	 	 	Senior Vice President
#### Charlotte C. Drummond et als. *vs.*Carrie A. Withee.

Penobscot County.

Decided March 1, 1922.

This is a real action to recover possession of a lot of land on the southeasterly side of Holland Street in Bangor, measuring 200 feet on the street, *579and 115.5 feet deep; the lot is unfenced except on its southeasterly-side adjoining land of one Davis; it lies along said street southwesterly of the homestead of defendant’s father and mother, and is not separated therefrom by any fence or other monument. The record title is conceded to be in the plaintiffs. The defendant holds a warrantee deed of the premises from her father and mother dated June 16, 1904, duly recorded on July 19, 1904, and claims title thereto under open, peaceable, notorious, adverse and exclusive possession thereof by her father for many years prior to June 16, 1904 and by herself since that date, originating in a contract of some kind for the purchase of the land from one Edward P. Baldwin, who died May 7, 1885.

*Howard M. Cook,*for plaintiffs.

*Clinton C. Stevens,*for defendant.

The defendant has a verdict, which the plaintiffs ask us to set aside upon general motion. The charge of the presiding Justice is not printed, and no exceptions thereto are presented. We must therefore assume that adequate instructions as to the character and duration of the possession necessary to ripen into title were given to the jury.

> We have carefully examined the record and are of the opinion that the testimony, if believed, clearly discloses acts of possession of the requisite character, continued for the requisite time, to support the verdict. The learned counsel for plaintiffs contends, (1) that the evidence is consistent with permissive use; but the testimony does not disclose that the possession was permissive, but rather tends to show that possession began under some contract of purchase made by Simeon W. Withee, father of defendant, with Edward P. Baldwin, the details of which the witnesses do not know; (2) that the possession was interrupted, and ownership was disclaimed by Simeon W. Withee at the time of his insolvency in March, 1882; but the jury would have been justified in finding that the possession was thereafter resumed during Mr. Baldwin’s lifetime and that the disseizin continued uninterruptedly thereafter for the requisite period.

These were questions of fact for the jury and presumably were included with all other questions of fact in arriving at their verdict. Upon a careful examination of the record we cannot say that the verdict is clearly wrong. Motion overruled.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Resulting from International Agreements

# Post-Test Thermal-Hydraulic Analysis of PKL Tests F1.1 and F1.2 (NUREG/IA-0417)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/IA-0417 (PDF - 11.56 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** April 2011**Date Published:** October 2014

**Prepared by:** J. Freixa, C. Pretel, L. Batet, F. Reventós

Institute of Energy Technologies Department of Physics and Nuclear Engineering Technical University of Catalonia ETSEIB, Av. Diagonal 647, Pav. C 08028 Barcelona Spain

K. Tien, NRC Project Manager

**Prepared as part of:** The Agreement on Research Participation and Technical Exchange Under the Thermal-Hydraulic Code Applications and Maintenance Program (CAMP)

**Published by:** Division of Systems Analysis Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 

Availability Notice

## Abstract

Two different post-test analyses have been performed by making use of the UPC’s model of the PKL facility. The nodalization has been developed using the RELAP5mod3.3 code and two tests of the OECD/PKL project, namely Test F1.1 and F1.2, have been simulated. For both transients, the simulations correctly reproduce the finalization of natural circulation and the beginning of the reflux condensation conditions with the consequent formation of low borated water slugs in the loop seals due to the phenomenon of boron dilution.

Test F1.1 is a Small Break LOCA in the cold leg assuming the non-availability of the LPI system and the accumulators while Test F1.2 simulates a series of steady state situations for different primary inventories in order to study the phenomenon of boron dilution as a function of the mass inventory.

Different sensitivity analyses are also reported and the nodalization of the U-tubes bundle is discussed for both scenarios. The results cover the formation of slugs in the loop seals under reflux and condensation conditions and their movement through the loop when the U-tubes are refilled and natural circulation is re-established.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Judicial Conference of the United States

# AGENCY:

Judicial Conference of the United States, Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure.

# ACTION:

Notice of open meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure will hold a two-day meeting. The meeting will be open to public observation but not participation.

# DATES:

March 16-17, 2015.

*Time:*                         8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

# ADDRESSES:

Florida A&M University, College of Law, 201 Beggs Avenue, Orlando, Florida 32801.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jonathan C. Rose, Rules Committee Secretary, Rules Committee Support Office, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 502-1820.

Dated: January 23, 2015.

Jonathan C. Rose,

Rules Committee Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2015-01564 Filed 1-27-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 2210-55-P
Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER 
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 Speedus Corp. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas M. Finn,
Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that: (1)
The Report
  fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
  Securities Exchange of 1934, amended; 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: August
14, 2008 By:
/s/ Thomas
  M. FinnName:
Thomas M.
  FinnTitle:
Treasurer
  and Chief Financial and Accounting Officer
#### State ex rel. O. H. Ingram Company, Respondent, vs. Wisconsin Tax Commission, Appellant.

*May 4*

May *23, 1916.*

*State ex rel. Bundy v. Nygaard, ante,*p. 307, followed.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Dane county: E. Ray Stevens, Circuit Judge.

*Affirmed.*

For the appellant there were briefs by the *Attorney G-eneral*and *E. E. Brossard,*assistant attorney general, and oral argument by *Mr. Brossard.*

For the respondent there was a brief by *Bundy é Wilcox,*and oral argument by *O. T. Bundy.*

Winslow, C. J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Dane county in an action of *certiorari*setting aside an income tax assessment made by the *Wisconsin Tax Commission*against the respondent. The fundamental question involved is the same as the question considered and decided in the case of *State ex rel. Bundy v. Nygaard, ante,*p. 307, 158 N. W. 87. The judgment is therefore affirmed for the reasons stated in the opinion filed on the motion for rehearing in that case.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed without costs.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

JASON A. STANTON, 

Appellant, 

v.

Case No. 5D22-1797

LT Case No. 2021-CF-000712

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee. 

________________________________/ 

Decision filed January 3, 2023

Appeal from the Circuit Court

for Hernando County. 

Daniel B. Merritt, Jr., Judge. 

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and 

Joseph Chloupek, Assistant Public Defender, 

Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, 

and L. Charlene Matthews, Assistant Attorney 

General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. 

PER CURIAM. 

AFFIRMED. 

EDWARDS, WALLIS and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
Exhibit
32.1


CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of INSIGNIA SOLUTIONS
PLC (the “Company”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2009, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
undersigned, Peter Engel, Chief Executive Officer of the Company hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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; and




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




By:
                    /s/Peter EngelPeter
      EngelChief
      Executive OfficerAugust
      7, 2009
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         537,055
<SECURITIES>                                 6,206,386
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,097,830
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    844,363
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,999,179
<PP&E>                                       8,059,869
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,088,070
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              21,739,412
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,030,824
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,459
<OTHER-SE>                                  16,226,583
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                21,739,412
<SALES>                                      1,376,978
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,551,497
<CGS>                                        1,278,373
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,249,673
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              65,959
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                370,579
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            370,579
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   370,579
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.05
        

</TABLE>
#### P. ROLLINS and others v. W. L. HENRY.

*Landlord and Tenant Aet — Appeal from Justice’s Court — Practice.*

Upon an appeal from a Justice’s Court, in an action under the Landlord and Tenant Act, when a third person .claiming as landlord of the defendant has been made a party defendant in the Superior Court, and the appeal is dismissed as to the tenant defendant, no writ of possession can issue from the Justice’s Court, until the.determination of the controversy between the plaintiff and interpleading defendant.

Civil Action to recover possession of Real Estate, tried at Fall term, 1875, of BüNcombe Superior Court, before Henry, *J.*

The facts in this ease are the same as in the case of P; *Hollins*v. *Ham Rollins, ante. •*,

*Mr. J. If. Merrimon,*for plaintiff.

*Messrs. Rattle Mordecai*and *J. G. Martin Son,*for defendant.

ByNüM, J.

This proceeding was commenced before a Justice of the Peace under the Landlord and Tenant Act and was taken to the Superior Court by appeal of the defendant. At the Fall Term, 1875, of that Court the appeal *270was dismissed upon the motion of the defendant himself. The-effect of the dismssal was to remit the case to the Justice’s Court, to be there proceeded in under the judgment which had been appealed from. The Superior Court therefore had lost its jurisdiction, nevertheless at the same time that Court awarded a writ of possession to the plaintiffs against the defendant, from which judgement he appealed to this. ■ Court. There is error for which a *venire de novo*must be granted.

At the same term at which this appeal was dismissed, R_ M. Henry filed an affidavit claiming the land in suit and alleging that this defendant was his tenant and asking to be made defendant as landlord in this and several other like cases. Ve have determined in the case of *Rollins*v. *Rollins*decided at the present term, that R. M. Henry had the right to appear and defend, and that no writ of possession against any of the tenants could be awarded and executed, pending the trial of the issues between the plaintiffs and R. M. Henry, even though judgment by default should be taken against the tenants. It follows that the Justice of the Peace cannot issue a writ of possession upon the judgment in this case unless the plaintiffs shall recover in the actions for the same land wherein the said R. M. Henry is allowed to be made a defendant. Adams on Eject. 239.

Per Curiam. *Venire de novo.*
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Data Communications (NUREG/CR-6082, UCRL-ID-114567)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-6082 (PDF - 5.4 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:**July 1993**Date Published:**August 1993****

**Prepared by:** G.G. Preckshot Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory P.O. Box 808 Livermore, California 94550

**Prepared for:** Division of Reactor Controls and Human Factors Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission****Washington, DC 20555-0001 

NRC FIN L-1867

Availability Notice

## Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to recommend regulatory guidance for reviewers examining computer communication systems used in nuclear power plants. The recommendations cover three areas important to these communications systems: system design, communication protocols, and communication media. The first area, system design, considers three aspects of system design — questions about architecture, specific risky design elements or omissions to look for in designs being reviewed, and recommendations for multiplexed data communication systems used in safety systems. The second area reviews pertinent aspects of communication protocol design and makes recommendations for newly designed protocols or the selection of existing protocols for safety system, information display, and nonsafety control system use. The third area covers communication media selection, which differs significantly from traditional wire and cable. The recommendations for communication media extend or enhance the concerns of published IEEE standards about three subjects: data rate, imported hazards and maintainability.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021