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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ISMAEL SOLIS-VILLEDA, AKA Ismael 

Solis, AKA Ismael Villeda Solis, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 18-70316 

Agency No. A205-711-939 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 14, 2021**

Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Ismael Solis-Villeda, 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 pretermitting his applications for cancellation 

of removal and adjustment of status. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 

* 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

DEC 17 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-70316 

We review de novo questions of law. Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 

(9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.

The IJ did not err in reopening the record of proceedings, where in petition 

No. 15-70696, this court granted the government’s motion to remand, in part, to 

further develop the record concerning Solis-Villeda’s conviction, and Solis-Villeda 

did not petition for rehearing of that decision. See Olivas-Motta v. Whitaker, 910 

F.3d 1271, 1280 (9th Cir. 2018) (“an administrative agency may not deviate from a 

supervising court’s remand order”).

The BIA did not err in concluding that California Health and Safety Code 

(“CHSC”) § 11377(a) is divisible and in applying the modified categorial approach 

to determine that Solis-Villeda’s conviction is a controlled substance offense that 

renders him ineligible for cancellation of removal and adjustment of status. See

8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), 1229b(b)(1)(C), 1255(i)(2)(A); Coronado v. 

Holder, 759 F.3d 977, 984-85 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding CHSC § 11377(a) is 

divisible with regard to substance and subject to the modified categorical 

approach).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Exhibit 13.2

ChipMOS TECHNOLOGIES (Bermuda) LTD.

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, the undersigned, Shou-Kang Chen, Chief Financial Officer of ChipMOS TECHNOLOGIES (Bermuda) LTD. (the
Company), hereby certifies, to his knowledge, that the Companys Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2014 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company, as of, and for, the periods presented
in the Report.

The foregoing certification is being furnished pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 solely for purposes of
complying with the provisions of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, is not intended to be used or relied upon for any other purpose and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

Date: April 24, 2015



/s/ Shou-Kang ChenName:

Shou-Kang ChenTitle:

Chief Financial Officer
#### Barnabas Jones *v.*Minton Jones.

A judgment of a single magistrate, for a sum above liis jurisdiction is void, and no action can be maintained on it.

This suit was originally commenced before a justice of the peace; by a warrant sued out May 23d, 1831. The *361plaintiff declared upon a former j udgment which was d ated March 10th, 1827', and was for “ g 75, with interest from the 25th of December, 1818.” At the trial on the last Spring Circuit, before Daniel, Judge, at Wake, aver-diet was taken for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court upon the question whether the judgment having been rendered before the passage of the act of 1828, c. 9, giving justices of the peace jurisdiction where the principal and interest exceeds g 100, was not void. •

His Honor being of opinion with the defendant, set aside the verdict and entered a nonsuit, from which the plaintiff appealed.

*Davereux,*for the plaintiff,

cited *Littlejohn*v. *Underhill,*(2 *Carolina Law Repository,*574.)

*W. II. Haywood, contra.*

Daniel, Judge,

after stating the case as above, proceeded: The first judgment being for a larger sum than a justice of the peace had jurisdiction of, it is void, and no action can be maintained upon it.

Per Curiam. — Judgment aeeirmed.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# Technical Study of Spent Fuel Pool Accident Risk at Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants (NUREG-1738)

On this page:
        - Publication Information 
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG-1738 (PDF - 20.09 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:**January 2001 **Date Published:**February 2001 

**Prepared by:** T.E. Collins, G. Hubbard

Division of Systems Safety and Analysis Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation  U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission  Washington, DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This study contains the results of the NRC staffs evaluation of the potential accident risk in a spent fuel pool at decommissioning plants in the United States. This study was prepared to provide a technical basis for decommissioning rulemaking for permanently shutdown nuclear power plants. This study describes a modeling approach of a typical decommissioning plant with design assumptions and industry commitments; the thermal-hydraulic analyses performed to evaluate the behavior of spent fuel stored in the spent fuel pool at decommissioning plants; the risk assessment of spent fuel pool accidents; the consequence calculations; and the sensitivity study and implications for decommissioning regulatory requirements. Preliminary drafts of this study were issued for public comments and technical reviews in June 1999 and February 2000. Comments from interested stakeholders, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, and other technical reviewers have been taken into account in preparing this study. A broad quality review was also carried out at the Idaho National Engineering and Environment Laboratory, and a panel of human reliability analysis experts evaluated the report's assumptions, methods, and modeling. Public comments on draft versions of this study are discussed in Appendix 6 of this NUREG.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1557 

To withdraw certain lands in Los Angeles County, California, from entry, 

appropriation, or disposal under the public land laws, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 16, 2017 

Mr. KNIGHT (for himself, Ms. JUDY CHU of California, Mr. SCHIFF, and Mr. 

SHERMAN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To withdraw certain lands in Los Angeles County, California, 

from entry, appropriation, or disposal under the public 

land laws, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Soledad Canyon Con5 sistency Act’’. 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1557 IH

1 SEC. 2. WITHDRAWAL OF CERTAIN LANDS IN LOS ANGELES 

2 COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. 

3 (a) WITHDRAWAL FROM MINERAL ENTRY.—Subject 

4 to valid existing rights, if any, the lands described in sub5 section (b) are withdrawn from— 

6 (1) entry, appropriation, or disposal under the 

7 public land laws; 

8 (2) location, entry, and patent under the mining 

9 laws; and 

10 (3) operation of the mineral leasing, mineral 

11 materials, and geothermal leasing laws. 

12 (b) LANDS DESCRIBED.— 

13 (1) IN GENERAL.—The lands referred to in sub14 section (a) consist of approximately 640.16 acres de15 picted as ‘‘Soledad Canyon Sand & Gravel Mining 

16 Project Site’’ on the Bureau of Land Management 

17 map entitled ‘‘Soledad Canyon Map A’’ and dated 

18 January 21, 2016. 

19 (2) EFFECT.—The map referred to in para20 graph (1) shall have the same force and effect as if 

21 included in this Act, except that the Secretary of the 

22 Interior may correct minor errors in the map. 

23 (3) AVAILABILITY.—The Secretary shall make 

24 the map referred to in paragraph (1) available in the 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1557 IH

1 appropriate offices of the Bureau of Land Manage2 ment. 

Æ 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# Safety Evaluation of Early Site Permit Application in the Matter of System Energy Resources, Inc., a Subsidiary of Entergy Corporation, for the Grand Gulf Early Site Permit Site (NUREG-1840)

On this page: 
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG-1840 (PDF 32.5 MB) 

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed: October 2005 Date Published: April 2006**

Division of New Reactor Licensing  Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This safety evaluation report (SER) documents the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff's technical review of the site safety analysis report and emergency planning information included with the early site permit (ESP) application submitted by System Energy Resources, Inc. (SERI or the applicant), a subsidiary of Entergy Corporation, for the Grand Gulf ESP site. By letter dated October 16, 2003, SERI submitted the application for the Grand Gulf ESP site in accordance with Subpart A, "Early Site Permits," of Title 10, Part 52, "Early Site Permits; Standard Design Certifications; and Combined Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants," of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 52). The Grand Gulf ESP site is in Claiborne County in southwestern Mississippi. The ESP site identified in the application is collocated with the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, near Port Gibson, Mississippi. In its application, SERI seeks approval of an ESP that could support a future application to construct and operate additional nuclear unit(s) at the ESP site, with total nuclear generating capacity of up to 8600 megawatts thermal (MWt), with a maximum 4300 MWt per unit.

This SER presents the results of the staff's review of information submitted in conjunction with the ESP application. The staff has identified, in Appendix A to this SER, certain site-related items that will need to be addressed at the combined license or construction permit stage, should an applicant desire to construct one or more new nuclear reactors on the Grand Gulf ESP site. The staff determined that these items do not affect the staff's regulatory findings at the ESP stage and are, for reasons specified in Section 1.7 of this SER, more appropriately addressed at later stages in the licensing process. Appendix A to this SER also identifies the proposed permit conditions that the staff recommends the Commission impose, should an ESP be issued to the applicant.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
### -82 -80 -78 -76 38 40 

## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 

### 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 08/01 

## NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

# Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 01 Aug 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.86 N 77.06 WMeters AGL 

## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■



## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■ 

## ★ ● ● ● ●



## ★ ● ● ● ●
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM STAR GAS
PARTNERS, L.P. AND SUBSIDIARIES CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF
DECEMBER 31, 2000 AND CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE
INTERIM PERIOD OCTOBER 1, 2000 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001002590
<NAME> STAR GAS PARTNERS, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                          18,285
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  156,795
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,445
<INVENTORY>                                     56,375
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               252,975
<PP&E>                                         231,968
<DEPRECIATION>                                  54,214
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 758,977
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          277,168
<BONDS>                                        302,834
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       174,215
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   758,977
<SALES>                                        290,591
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               323,504
<CGS>                                          194,386
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  231,302
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                65,824
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,337
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,117
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,924
<INCOME-TAX>                                       716
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             16,208
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                        1,466
<NET-INCOME>                                    17,674
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .87
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .86


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

INFINITY SELECT INSURANCE 

COMPANY,

Petitioner

v.

TARRIE FLEMING, IVY SHELBY PATE, 

STEVEN L. PATE AND DUAN WILLIAMS,

Respondents

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 37 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 5th day of July, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsBrochures Prepared by NRC Staff

# Fire Protection and Fire Research Knowledge Management Digest (NUREG/BR-0465)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

# Readout of Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin's Call with Japanese Defense Minister Nobuo Kishi

DoD Release

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More News
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
#### Winslow *v.*Walker.

A boat is drifted away from a landing, and taken up by a stranger, who sells to Defendant: *held,*that tbe stranger’s right to salvage, is a demand upon the Plaintiff to be enforce d by detention, and that the right is not transferable to a purchaser oi the property.

Trover for a boat; and a general vndiet for (he Plaintiff-, subject to the opinion of the court upon this special case, *via*: The boat sued for, was the property of the Plaintiff, and was drifted away from the landing at Campbeliton, and floated dowti the river 114 miles, to a part of the river about a miie wide, and was there taken up by a stranger ; and again got adrift and went to the New-Inief, where the river empties into the sea, ten miles *wide;*there il was again taken up by a stranger who knew not ttie owner, nor from whence the boat had come. The boat was greatly wrecked and damaged, and in that condition was sold to (lie Defendant, who repaired it: upon which the. Plaintiff demanded, and the *222Defendant refused to deliver. If on the above facts, the law is for the Plaintiff, the judgment to be given for him in the verdict; if for the Defendant, then a nonsuit to be entered.

And now upon argument it was insisted for the Defendant, that the taker-up of the boat who sold to him, had a lien on it for his salvage, to which he was entitled.— 1 *L, Ray.*393. the case of *Harford*and *Jones,*and 2 *Bl. Hep.*11 *IT,*were cited.

• The court took time to advise, and the next day gave judgment for the Plaintiff, being of opinion that the right he had to detain the boat until paid for salvage, was its the nature of a demand upon the Plaintiff, or a chose in action, to be enforced by keeping possession of the boat till the Plaintiff should satisfy him, which could not he transferred with the boat to another; and being founded on the possession, when he parted with that, he lost his lien, and could then only recover his salvage in his own name against the Plaintiff. 1 *Atk.*234, 235. 1 Burr. 494. 5 Bac. *Ab. 270. Doug.*105. 4 *Burr.*2214. And there was judgment for the Plaintiff.
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1585 

To amend the Securities Act of 1933 to codify certain qualifications of 

individuals as accredited investors for purposes of the securities laws. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 16, 2017 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT (for himself, Ms. SINEMA, Mr. ROYCE of California, Mr. 

HILL, Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York, Mr. YOHO, Mr. 

LAMALFA, Mr. HULTGREN, Mr. GOTTHEIMER, Mr. DAVIDSON, and Mr. 

POLIS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Securities Act of 1933 to codify certain qualifications of individuals as accredited investors for purposes of the securities laws. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DEFINITION OF ACCREDITED INVESTOR. 

4 Section 2(a)(15)(ii) of the Securities Act of 1933 (15 

5 U.S.C. 77b(a)(15)(ii)) is amended by striking the period 

6 at the end and inserting the following: ‘‘, and shall in7 clude— 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1585 IH

1 ‘‘(I) any natural person whose indi2 vidual net worth, or joint net worth with 

3 that person’s spouse, exceeds $1,000,000, 

4 not including the value of such person’s 

5 primary residence owned either individually 

6 or jointly with his or her spouse; 

7 ‘‘(II) any natural person who had an 

8 individual income in excess of $200,000 in 

9 each of the two most recent years or joint 

10 income with that person’s spouse in excess 

11 of $300,000 in each of those years and has 

12 a reasonable expectation of reaching the 

13 same income level in the current year; 

14 ‘‘(III) any natural person who holds a 

15 current financial services-related license 

16 issued by a State; and 

17 ‘‘(IV) any natural person the Commis18 sion determines, by regulation, to have de19 monstrable education or job experience to 

20 qualify such person as having professional 

21 knowledge of a subject related to a par22 ticular investment, and whose education or 

23 job experience is verified by the Financial 

24 Industry Regulatory Authority.’’. 

Æ 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Transport Transports Canada Canada TP 7245E



# AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE

The following airworthiness directive (AD) may be applicable to an aircraft which our records indicat e is registered in your name. ADs are issued pursuant to **Canadian Aviation Regulation**  (CAR) 521 Division X . Pursuant to CAR 605.84 and the further details of CAR Standard 625, Appendix H , the continuing airworthiness of a Canadian registered aircraft is contingent upon compliance with all applicable ADs. Failure to comply with the requirements of an AD may invalidate the flig ht authorization of the aircraft. Alternative means of compliance shall be applied for in accordance with CAR 605.84 and the above

- referenced Standard

. This AD has been issued by the Continuing Airworthiness Division (AARDG), National Aircraft Certification Branch, Transport C anada, Ottawa, telephone 613 952

- 4357. 1 / 1 No

. CF - 201 4 - 22 Issue Date 16 July 2014

Number: CF - 201 4 - 22
ATA: 27 Type Certificate: A - 142 Subject: Flight Controls

– Outboard Spoiler Power Control Unit (PCU)

– Inadvertent Spoiler Deployment
Effective Date : 30 July 2014 Applicability: Bombardier Inc. model DHC - 8 - 400, - 401 and - 402 aeroplan es , serial numbers 4001, 4003 through 4453

. Compliance: Within 6000 hours air time or 3 years , whichever occurs first, from the effective date of this AD , unless already accomplished. Background: Although AD CF

- 2009

- 26 was issued to mandate t he upgrade o f the spoiler lift / dump valve, it did not reduce the rate of inadvertent single spoiler deployment occurrence s

. Further investigation revealed that the outboard spoiler PCUs may also be subject to pressure reversals at the PCU main control valve seal, resu lting in leakage at the piston head seal and piston rod seals

. I f not corrected, this condition may result in reduced controllability of the aeroplane

. This AD mandates the replacement of the existing outboard spoiler PCU s with the upgraded PCU s with re - d esigned seal s for better leakage protection

. Corrective Actions: I ncorporate the Modsum 4

- 113783 in accordance with Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Inc. Service Bulletin (SB) 84

- 27

- 63, Initial Revision, dated 17 October 2013, or later revisions approved by the Chief, Continuing Airworthiness, Transport Canada.
Authorization: For the Minister of Transport,
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY
Robin Lau Acting Chief, Continuing Airworthiness
Contact: Gordanko Jeremic , Continuing Airworthiness, Ottawa, telephone 613

- 952

- 4357, facsi mile 613

- 996

- 9178 or e

- mail AD

- CN@tc.gc.ca or any Transport Canada Centre.

Pursuant to CAR 202.51 the registered owner of a Canadian aircraft shall, within seven days, notify the Minister in writing of any change of his or her name or address. To request a change of address, contact the Civil Aviation Communications Centre (AARC) at Place de Ville, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N8 , or 1 - 800 - 305 - 2059 , or www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/communications/centre/ address.asp
24

- 0022 (01

- 2005)