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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARLEN SUYAPA SANTOS-CABRERA, 

AKA Maria Gonzalez-Pacheco, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 16-71117 

Agency No. A098-589-470 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 13, 2018**

Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Marlen Suyapa Santos-Cabrera, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions 

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from 

an immigration judge’s order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings 

conducted in absentia. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review 

 

* 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

MAR 20 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-71117 

for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo 

questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). 

We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Santos-Cabrera’s motion 

to reopen as untimely, where she filed the motion nearly nine years after her in 

absentia removal order, and has not demonstrated that any exception to the filing 

deadlines are applicable. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i), (c)(7)(C)(i). 

We reject Santos-Cabrera’s contentions that the agency failed to sufficiently 

consider evidence and arguments, properly consider all factors, or insufficiently 

explained its decision. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) 

(agency need not write an exegesis on every contention); Fernandez v. Gonzales, 

439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner did not overcome the presumption 

that the BIA did review the record).

Santos-Cabrera’s contention that the Illegal Immigration Reform and 

Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 is unconstitutional lacks merit. See JimenezAngeles v. Ashcroft, 291 F.3d 594, 602-03 (9th Cir. 2002) (limitations by country 

of origin on the availability of special rule cancellation of removal do not violate 

equal protection).

To the extent Santos-Cabrera challenges the agency’s discretionary decision 

not to reopen proceedings sua sponte, we lack jurisdiction to review this 
3 16-71117 

determination absent a claim of legal or constitutional error. See Bonilla v. Lynch, 

840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[T]his court has jurisdiction to review Board 

decisions denying sua sponte reopening for the limited purpose of reviewing the 

reasoning behind the decisions for legal or constitutional error.”).

Because the untimeliness determination is dispositive, we do not reach 

Santos-Cabrera’s remaining contentions regarding eligibility for relief. See

Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

UNITED STATES

v.

Airman Basic REYNA R. LOPEZTEGUI

United States Air Force

ACM S32209 (rem)

9 June 2016

Sentence adjudged 19 November 2013 by SPCM convened at 

Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. Military Judge: Ronald A. Gregory.

Approved Sentence: Confinement for 30 days.

Appellate Counsel for Appellant: Major Jeffrey A. Davis.

Appellate Counsel for the United States: Lieutenant Colonel Steven J. 

Grocki; Major Daniel J. Breen; Captain Collin F. Delaney; and Gerald R. 

Bruce, Esquire.

Before

MITCHELL, DUBRISKE, and ZIMMERMAN*

Appellate Military Judges

OPINION OF THE COURT

UPON REMAND

This opinion is issued as an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent 

under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 18.4.

MITCHELL, Senior Judge:

Appellant pled guilty at a special court-martial to one specification of absence 

without leave, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 886. A panel of officer 

members convicted her of the greater offense of desertion, in violation of Article 85, 

 

*

Judge Zimmerman participated in this decision prior to her retirement. 
2 ACM S32209 (rem)

UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 885. The members sentenced her to a bad-conduct discharge and 

confinement for 30 days. The convening authority approved the sentence as adjudged. 

Appellant asserted the following errors before our court: (1) her sentence was 

legally and factually insufficient because it was based on the members’ mistake of law, and 

(2) a post-trial processing error occurred because the staff judge advocate’s 

recommendation (SJAR) and its addendum failed to accurately address the alleged error in 

the members’ sentencing decision. The majority of the panel found no materially 

prejudicial error and affirmed the findings and sentence. United States v. Lopeztegui, ACM 

S32209 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 11 May 2015) (unpub. op.). 

Our superior court granted review on the issue of whether the SJAR and its 

addendum were erroneous because they did not provide accurate information to the 

convening authority. The court reversed our decision, set aside the convening authority’s 

action and remanded for a new post-trial recommendation and associated post-trial 

processing. United States v. Lopeztegui, 75 M.J. 49 (C.A.A.F. 2015).

On remand, the convening authority approved the 30 days of confinement. 

Appellant does not raise new issues before this court and her prior assignments of error are 

mooted by the new post-trial processing and action. 

Conclusion

The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no error 

materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant occurred. Articles 59(a) and 

66(c), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(c). Accordingly, the approved findings and 

sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT

 LEAH M. CALAHAN

Clerk of the Court
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.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Drug Enforcement Administration

          - [Docket No. DEA-392]

# ACTION:

Notice of registration.

# SUMMARY:

Johnson Matthey, Inc. applied to be registered as a manufacturer of certain basic classes of controlled substances. The DEA grants Johnson Matthey, Inc. registration as a manufacturer of those controlled substances.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    By notice dated September 25, 2014, and published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on October 7, 2014, 79 FR 60498, Johnson Matthey, Inc., Custom Pharmaceuticals Department, 2003 Nolte Drive, West Deptford, New Jersey 08066-1742, applied to be registered as a manufacturer of a certain basic class of controlled substance. No comments or objections were submitted to this notice.                          ( print page 4594)    

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Johnson Matthey, Inc. to manufacture the basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. The DEA investigated the company's maintenance of effective controls against diversion by inspecting and testing the company's physical security systems, verifying the company's compliance with state and local laws, and reviewing the company's background and history.

Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above-named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of marihuana (7360), a basic class of controlled substance listed in schedule I.

In reference to drug code 7360, the company plans to manufacture a synthetic version cannabidiol in bulk for sale to its customers, who are final dosage form manufacturers. No other activity for this drug code is authorized for this registration.

Dated: January 21, 2015.

Joseph T. Rannazzisi,

Deputy Assistant Administrator.

[FR Doc. 2015-01602 Filed 1-27-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LUIS GONZALO FLORES

- SOLIS,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney

General,

Respondent. No. 15

- 70957

Agency No. A011

- 323

- 102

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 9, 2017 **

Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Luis Gonzalo Flores

- Solis, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his a ppeal from an

immigration judge’ s decision denying his application for deferral of removal under

the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.

* 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

AUG 16 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 70957

§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’ s factual findings

, Silaya v.

Mukasey , 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008) , and w e deny the petition for

review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency ’ s denial of CAT relief because

Flores

- Solis failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or

with the consent or acquiescence of the Mexican government. S ee id

. at 1073 ;

Zheng v. Holder , 644 F.3d 829, 835

- 36 (9th Cir. 2011) ( finding that the petitioner’s

claims of possible torture we re speculative and therefore did not compel reversal ).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-2350

MONICA B. YOUNG,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

HALIFAX COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Malcolm J. Howard, District

Judge. (CA-01-95-4-H)

Submitted: January 31, 2002 Decided: February 6, 2002

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Monica B. Young, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffery L. Jenkins, Halifax,

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Monica B. Young appeals from the district court’s order

denying relief on her motion for reconsideration of a previous

order denying her motion for default judgment and dismissing her

civil action. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on

the reasoning of the district court. Young v. Halifax County Dep’t

of Soc. Servs., No. CA-01-95-4-H (E.D.N.C. Oct. 10, 2001). 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
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1797 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1797

 To improve the provision of health care by the Department of Veterans 
                    Affairs, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2017

Mr. Wittman (for himself and Ms. Shea-Porter) introduced the following 
     bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To improve the provision of health care by the Department of Veterans 
                    Affairs, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Veteran's Choice Accountability 
Act''.

SEC. 2. EVALUATION OF FEE-BASIS CARE PROVIDED BY DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 
              AFFAIRS.

    The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall evaluate all programs of 
the Department of Veterans Affairs under which the Secretary furnishes 
hospital care, medical services, and nursing home care to determine the 
most intensively used specialized care programs of the Department and 
to ensure such programs are maintained as centers of excellence.

SEC. 3. EVALUATION OF IMPLEMENTATION OF VA BUDGET AND CHOICE 
              IMPROVEMENT ACT.

    Not later than two years after the date of the enactment of this 
Act, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall submit to Congress an 
evaluation of the implementation by the Secretary of the VA Budget and 
Choice Improvement Act (title IV of Public Law 114-41).
                                 <all>
```
#### Corrigan, Respondent, vs. City of Antigo, Appellant.

*April 12*

April *29, 1913.*

*Municipal corporations: Injury from defective sidewalk:*Evidence: *Sufficiency.*

In an action against a city for personal injury sustained by reason of an alleged defective sidewalk, findings by tbe jury to tbe effect that tbe walk was insufficient for public travel, that defendant was charged with notice of its insufficiency, and as to. tbe damages, are *held, to*be sustained by tbe evidence.

*452Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Langlade county: Johst Goodlahd, Circuit Judge.

*Affirmed.*

Action to recover damages for a personal injury sustained, by reason of an alleged defective sidewalk on one of the principal streets in the city of *Antigo.*The walk was made of hemlock planks two inches thick and six inches wide, laid crosswise upon three stringers. Between 8 and 9 o’clock on the evening of May 20, 1911, the plaintiff, in company with one Mrs. Bomke, started up town to do some shopping. The plaintiff was on the inside of the walk and Mrs. Bomke on the outside. "When opposite a place called Hull’s, Mrs. Bomke stepped on a plank that broke under her heel and caused the end on the inside of the walk to tip up and trip the plaintiff, who fell to the ground and received the injuries complained of. The jury found (1) that the place where plaintiff was injured was insufficient for public travel; (2) that the officers of the city of Antigo, charged with the immediate duty of attending to such matters, had notice of such insufficient condition for a sufficient length of time to have repaired the walk before the accident, by the exercise of reasonable diligence; (3) that the defect existed long enough before the accident to enable the defendant, by the exercise of ordinary care, to discover and remedy it; (4) that the insufficient condition of the walk was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries; and (5) damages in the sum of $1,500. Erom a judgment in favor of the plaintiff entered upon the special verdict the defendant appealed.

For the appellant there was a brief by *R. C. Smelker,*attorney, and *Geo. W.*Latta, of counsel, and oral argument by *Mr. Latta.*

For the respondent there was a brief by *Goodrich & Goodrich,*and oral argument by *A. B. Goodrich.*

Vinje, J.

The defendant attacks the verdict (1) because the evidence does not sustain the finding that the walk was *453insufficient for public travel; (2) because tbe defendant was not charged with notice of its insufficiency; and (3) because tbe damages are excessive. We bave carefully examined tbe evidence, and as to each contention tbe result of tbe examination is adverse to tbe defendant. Tbe findings complained of are not only sustained by credible evidence, but ¡seem to be based upon a preponderance thereof. A verdict will not be set aside if there is any credible evidence to sustain it. *Beyer v. St. Paul F. & M. Ins. Co.*112 Wis. 138, 88 N. W. 57; *Smith v. Reed,*141 Wis. 483, 124 N. W. 489. Since tbe jurisprudence of tbe state would not be enriched by a statement of tbe evidence sustaining tbe verdict, none will be made.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
Ex-99.4
Aggregate Statement of Principal and Interest Distribution to
Certificateholders.

                                                                  ENDING
 CLASS           INTEREST                PRINCIPAL                BALANCE
--------    ------------------      -------------------     --------------------
   A          $88,940,242.31          $844,845,599.09        $1,130,237,250.79
  B-1            $276,956.42                    $0.00            $5,060,608.07
  B-2            $110,790.13                    $0.00            $2,024,162.12
  B-3            $165,196.92                    $0.00            $3,036,456.84
  M-1            $830,959.32                    $0.00           $15,181,824.21
  M-2            $720,163.63                    $0.00           $13,157,560.72
  M-3            $387,782.11                    $0.00            $7,084,871.57
   R                   $0.46                  $100.17                    $0.00
              --------------          ---------------
              $91,433,121.30          $844,845,699.25
              ==============          ===============
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

      ( print page 4292)    
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIAID Peer Review Meeting.                    

*Date:*                         February 20, 2015.                    

*Time:*                         11 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate contract proposals.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Room 3F100, 5601 Fisher Lane, Rockville, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Raymond R. Schleef, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer Scientific Review Program Division of Extramural Activities, National Institutes of Health/NIAID, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20892-7616, 240-669-5019,                         *schleefrr@niaid.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: January 21, 2015.

David Clary, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2015-01359 Filed 1-26-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
WAYNE W. TUCKER,

Petitioner,

v.

JULIE L. JONES, SECRETARY, 

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS, AND WARDEN 

LARRY W. MAYO OF 

EVERGLADES CORRECTIONAL 

INSTITUTION,

Respondents.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-0699

Opinion filed January 21, 2015.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari – Original Jurisdiction.

Wayne W. Tucker, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Tammy S. Metcalf, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM.

DENIED.

WOLF, THOMAS, and WETHERELL, JJ., CONCUR.
EXHIBIT 32.2





Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





I, Dennis Harkins, President and Chief Financial Officer of Zanett, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Form 10-K/A of the Company for the annual period ended December 31, 2010 (“the Company Form 10- K/A”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that information contained in the Company Form 10- K/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/ Dennis Harkins

May 2, 2011Dennis Harkins – President and Chief Financial Officer

Date