alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 abu se 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 APPEALS2 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

d eprived 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 jur isdiction 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 constitution al 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

.
EXHIBIT
32.1





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





I,
Claudio M. Guazzoni, Chief Executive 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, of the Form 10-K/A of the Company
for the annual period ended December 31, 2009 (“the Company Form 10-K”) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) or the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that information contained in
the Company Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/
      Claudio M. Guazzoni
                        
                        April
      30, 2010Claudio
      M. Guazzoni – Chief Executive Officer
                        
                        Date
Exhibit 32.1

Form 10-KSB 

Ogden Golf Co. Corporation

File No. 333-105075

 

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the Ogden Golf Co. Corporation(the “Company”) Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

 

I, Mark A. Scharmann, President, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify that:

 

1.         the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and

 

2.         the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Ogden Golf Co. Corporation.

 

 

| Dated: December 1, 2007 | By: /s/ Mark A. Scharmann    |
|-------------------------|------------------------------|
|                    | Mark A. Scharmann            |
|                    | President                    |
|                    | Principal Executive Officer  |
|                    | Principal Accounting Officer |
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Review of Industry Responses to NRC Generic Letter 97-06 on Degradation of Steam Generator Internals (NUREG/CR-6754)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-6754 (PDF 2.76 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** December 2001**Date Published:** December 2001

**Prepared by:** M. Subudhi, J. C. Higgins, BNL S. M. Coffin, NRC

Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973-5000

E. J. Sullivan, NRC Project Manager

**Prepared for:** Division of Engineering Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission****Washington, DC 20555-0001

NRC Job Code J2831

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This report presents the results of an assessment of the nuclear power industry's responses to NRC Generic Letter (GL) 97-06 on the degradation of steam generator (SG) internals experienced at Electricite de France (EdF) plants in France and at a United States (U.S.) Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR). Before issuing the GL, with the exception of a few licensees, there were no formal inspection programs, nor any industry guidelines for monitoring the secondary side internals of steam generators. Nonetheless, all licensees have been performing some inspection and maintenance on their steam generator internals and have found no significant degradation in them. Most of the steam generators in U.S. plants do not appear susceptible to the degradation found at EdF and in the U.S. PWR.

The Westinghouse (W) Models 44, 51, 5IM, and D3 and the Combustion Engineering Model 67 with carbon steel eggcrates potentially could experience degradation similar to that found at EdF plants and the U.S. PWR. Recent inspections showed that replacement steam generators made by Babcock & Wilcox International of Canada may be vulnerable to tube proximity problems. The owners groups identified possible degradation mechanisms for these models in their assessments and have evaluated their potential causes. Recommendations were made to monitor for these types of degradation.

During this assessment, each owners group identified for its steam generator models all the potential internal components that are vulnerable to degradation while in service. They provided inspection- and monitoring-guidance and recommendations for their particular SG models. The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), who has been coordinating the industry's response to this GL, has incorporated in NEI 97-06, "Steam Generator Program Guidelines" a requirement to monitor secondary side SG components if their failure could prevent the SG from fulfilling its intended safety-related function. Licensees plan to implement their owners group recommendations to address the long-term effects of the potential degradation mechanisms associated with the SG internals. Overall, the licensees' submittals have met the intent of the GL and provide reasonable assurance that the SG internals comply with, and conform to, the licensing basis.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

(SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

In
connection with the Annual Report of Husker Ag, LLC (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:



| | 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |                                                            |  |  |  | 
|--------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------- |  |  |  | 
|Date: March 30, 2007. |  |                                                            |  | 
|                      |  |                                                            | 
|By:                   |  | /s/ Mike Kinney                                            |  |  |  | 
|                      |  | Mike Kinney, Chairman of the Board, President and Director |  |  |  | 
|                      |  | (Principal Executive Officer)                              |  |  |  | 
|                      |  |                                                            | 
|By:                   |  | /s/ Robert E. Brummels                                     |  |  |  | 
|                      |  | Robert E. Brummels, Treasurer and Director                 |  |  |  | 
|                      |  | (Principal Financial Officer)                              |  |  |  |
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-8454

CHRIS RATTIS, 

 Petitioner – Appellant, 

 v. 

H. JACKSON, 

 Respondent – Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, 

District Judge. (5:08-hc-02026-D) 

Submitted: August 26, 2009 Decided: September 17, 2009 

Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Chris Rattis, Appellant Pro Se. 

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

Chris Rattis seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) 

petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We dismiss the appeal for 

lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely 

filed. 

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of 

the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends 

the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the 

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely 

filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional 

requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). 

Therefore, the appeal must be dismissed if the notice of appeal 

is untimely. Washington v. Bumgarner, 882 F.2d 899, 900 

(4th Cir. 1989). 

The district court’s order was entered on the docket 

on September 29, 2008. Rattis’ notice of appeal was filed, at 

the earliest, on November 17, 2008.* Because Rattis failed to 

file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or 

 *

 For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date 

appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could 

have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to 

the court. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 

U.S. 266, 276 (1988). 

2 
3 

reopening of the appeal period, we deny leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. 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. 

DISMISSED
Exhibit 10.1






EXHIBIT 10.1




SEVENTH AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




This is the Seventh Amendment to the Employment Agreement (“Agreement”) between Lindsay
Corporation, a Delaware corporation (“LINDSAY”) and Richard W. Parod (“PAROD”), which was entered
into on March 8, 2000, and under which PAROD commenced employment on April 5, 2000, and was
previously amended on May 2, 2003, December 22, 2004, March 20, 2007, December 22, 2008, January
26, 2009 and February 25, 2010.



I.




Paragraph 2 of the Agreement is hereby amended to extend the Term of the Agreement for two
additional years, so that, unless terminated at an earlier date in accordance with Paragraph 4 of
the Agreement, the Term shall continue in effect until April 5, 2013.



II.




All other terms and conditions of the Agreement are hereby ratified and confirmed. All defined
terms which are used herein shall have the same meaning as in the Agreement, except as modified
herein.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed the Seventh Amendment to the Agreement to be
effective on the later date set forth below when the Agreement has been executed by both parties.



	 	 	 	 	 
	RICHARD W. PAROD

	 	LINDSAY CORPORATION	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	/s/ Richard W. Parod
 

Richard W. Parod

	 	/s/ Michael N. Christodolou
 

Michael N. Christodolou
	 	 
	 

	 	Chairman of the Board	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Date: January 31, 2011

	 	Date: January 31, 2011
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# A Simplified Model of Aerosol Removal by Natural Processes in Reactor Containments (NUREG/CR-6189, SAND94-0407)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-6189 (PDF – 9.66 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:**October 1995**Date Published:**July 1996

**Prepared by:** D. A. Powers, K. E. Washington/SNL S. B. Burson/NRC J. L. Sprung/SNL

Sandia National Laboratories Albuquerque, NM 87185

J. H. Schaperow, NRC Project Manager

**Prepared for:** Division of Systems Technology Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

 NRC Job Code L2035

Availability Notice

## Abstract

Simplified formulae are developed for estimating the aerosol decontamination that can be achieved by natural processes in the containments of pressurized water reactors and in the drywells of boiling water reactors under severe accident conditions. These simplified formulae were derived by correlation of results of Monte Carlo uncertainty analyses of detailed models of aerosol behavior under accident conditions. Monte Carlo uncertainty analyses of decontamination by natural aerosol processes are reported for 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 MW(th) pressurized water reactors and for 1500, 2500, and 3500 MW(th) boiling water reactors. Uncertainty distributions for the decontamination factors and decontamination coefficients as functions of time were developed in the Monte Carlo analyses by considering uncertainties in aerosol processes, material properties, reactor geometry and severe accident progression. Phenomenological uncertainties examined in this work included uncertainties in aerosol coagulation by gravitational collision, Brownian diffusion, turbulent diffusion and turbulent inertia. Uncertainties in aerosol deposition by gravitational settling, thermophoresis, diffusiophoresis, and turbulent diffusion were examined. Electrostatic charging of aerosol particles in severe accidents is discussed. Such charging could affect both the coagulation and deposition of aerosol particles. Electrostatic effects are not considered in most available models of aerosol behavior during severe accidents and cause uncertainties in predicted natural decontamination processes that could not be taken in to account in this work.

Median (50 percentile), 90 and 10 percentile values of the uncertainty distributions for effective decontamination coefficients were correlated with time and reactor thermal power. These correlations constitute a simplified model that can be used to estimate the decontamination by natural aerosol processes at three levels of conservatism. Example applications of the simplified model are described.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021
EXHIBIT 24.7

POWER OF ATTORNEY

Know all by these presents, that I, the undersigned, do hereby appoint Mike
Kinney and Robert E. Brummels, or either of them, as my attorney-in-fact with full power of substitution, to execute in their respective names, individually and in my capacity as director:

(i) the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the 2007 Annual Report) of Husker Ag, LLC and any and all
amendments thereto, and to file the 2007 Annual Report, any and all such amendments, and exhibits and documents thereto required in connection therewith with the Securities and Exchange Commission and granting unto each attorney-in-fact and any
substitute, full power and authority to do and to perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in connection therewith, as fully as I might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said
attorneys-in-fact and their substitutes may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof; and

(ii) the Rule 13e-3 Transaction
Statement Under Section 13(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on Schedule 13E-3 (the Schedule 13E-3) of Husker Ag, LLC and any and all amendments thereto, and to file the Schedule 13E-3, any and all such amendments, and
exhibits and documents thereto required in connection therewith with the Securities and Exchange Commission and granting unto each attorney-in-fact and any substitute, full power and authority to do and to perform each and every act and thing
requisite and necessary to be done in connection therewith, as fully as I might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and their substitutes may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 24thday of March, 2008.



/s/ David StearnsDavid Stearns




|                  |  |   |  |    
|----------------- |  | - |  | ---
|STATE OF NEBRASKA |  | ) |  |    
|                  |  | ) |  | ss.
|COUNTY OF PIERCE  |  | ) |  |    

On this 24thday of March, 2008, before me, a Notary public qualified for said County, personally came David Stearns, known to me to be the identical person who signed the
foregoing instrument and acknowledged the execution thereof to be his voluntary act and deed.



|       |  |  |  |  |  |                                 
|------ |  |  |  |  |  | --------------------------------
|       |  |  | 
|       |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Kristine Wacker             
|{Seal} |  |  |  |  |  | Notary Public                   
|       |  |  | 
|       |  |  |  |  |  | My commission expires: 2-28-2010
### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 10-50844 Summary Calendar

JOSE LUIS OCHOA, Petitioner-Appellant

v. WARDEN, R EEVES C OUNTY DETENTION CENTER I II; UNITED STATES BUREAU OF PRISONS; DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondents-Appellees

A ppeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:10-CV-72
Before JONES, DENNIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jose Luis Ochoa, federal prisoner # 64218-179, an alien against whom the Bureau of Immigratio n and Customs Enforcement h a s i ssued a d etainer subjecting him to immediate removal from the United States u pon r elease from B u r e a u o f Prisons (BOP) custody, appeals the denial of h is 28 U .S.C. § 2241 petition challenging the BOP’s exclusion o f him from rehabilitation programs U n i t e d S t a te s C o u r t o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D April 12, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 10-50844 Document: 00512206156 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/12/2013No. 10-50844

and halfway houses. The petition is f o r e c l osed by this court’s decision in Gallegos-Hernandez v. United States , 6 88 F.3d 190, 192-93 ( 5th C ir. 2012), cert. denied , 133 S. Ct. 561 (2012). AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 10-50844 Document: 00512206156 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/12/2013
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1892 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1892

To amend title 4, United States Code, to provide for the flying of the 
 flag at half-staff in the event of the death of a first responder in 
                           the line of duty.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 4, 2017

   Mr. Larson of Connecticut (for himself, Mr. King of New York, Mr. 
 Pascrell, Mr. Reichert, Mr. Walz, Mr. Ruppersberger, Mr. Rutherford, 
 Mr. Fitzpatrick, Ms. DeLauro, Ms. Esty, and Mr. Grijalva) introduced 
    the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 4, United States Code, to provide for the flying of the 
 flag at half-staff in the event of the death of a first responder in 
                           the line of duty.

    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 ``Honoring Hometown Heroes Act''.

SEC. 2. PERMITTING THE FLAG TO BE FLOWN AT HALF-STAFF IN THE EVENT OF 
              THE DEATH OF A FIRST RESPONDER SERVING IN THE LINE OF 
              DUTY.

    (a) Amendment.--The sixth sentence of section 7(m) of title 4, 
United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking ``or'' after ``possession of the United 
        States'' and inserting a comma;
            (2) by inserting ``or the death of a first responder 
        working in any State, territory, or possession who dies while 
        serving in the line of duty,'' after ``while serving on active 
        duty,'';
            (3) by striking ``and'' after ``former officials of the 
        District of Columbia'' and inserting a comma; and
            (4) by inserting before the period the following: ``, and 
        first responders working in the District of Columbia''.
    (b) First Responder Defined.--Such subsection is further amended--
            (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``, United States Code; 
        and'' and inserting a semicolon;
            (2) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at the end and 
        inserting ``; and''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(4) the term `first responder' means a `public safety 
        officer' as defined in section 1204 of the Omnibus Crime 
        Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796b).''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this Act shall apply 
with respect to deaths of first responders occurring on or after the 
date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```