alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

August 19, 2005

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 04-16336

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

Agency No. A79-349-805

SANDRA MILENA GARZON,

Petitioner,

versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

__________________________

Petition for Review from a Final Order

of the Board of Immigration Appeals

_________________________

(August 19, 2005)

Before ANDERSON, DUBINA and CARNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
2

Sandra Milena Garzon, a citizen of Colombia, petitions through counsel for

review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying her motion to

reconsider its earlier decision. In its previous order, the BIA had affirmed the

immigration judge’s denial of her application for asylum and withholding of

removal under the Immigration and Naturalization Act and for relief under the

United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, and

Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT).

We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider for abuse of

discretion. Assa’ad v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 332 F.3d 1321, 1341 (11th Cir. 2003);

see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (“The decision to grant or deny a motion to

reconsider is within the discretion of the [BIA] . . . .”). A motion to reconsider

must set forth either an error of law or an error of fact in the prior BIA decision,

and must be supported by pertinent authority. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). Garzon’s

motion to reconsider failed to set forth any error in the BIA’s previous order. 

Instead, it simply restated her argument that her mother had been granted asylum

based on the same facts she alleged, an argument that both the BIA and the IJ had

previously considered and rejected. Therefore, the BIA did not abuse its

discretion by denying Garzon’s motion to reconsider.
3

In her brief, Garzon also challenges the BIA’s first order, in which it

affirmed the denial of her claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief

under CAT. 

We do not consider this challenge because it is not properly before us. 

Garzon did not file a timely petition for review of the BIA’s final order of removal

or its rejection of her additional evidence. A petition for review must be filed no

later than thirty days after the date of the final order of removal. 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(b)(1). Here, the BIA’s first order was entered on August 31, 2004, and

Garzon’s petition for review was not filed until December 6, 2004, more than three

months later. It makes no difference that Garzon filed a motion for

reconsideration. That does not toll the time for seeking judicial review of the final

order of removal. Ahmed v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 247, 248 (7th Cir. 2004); see also

Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 115 S. Ct. 1537 (1995).

PETITION DENIED.
<PAGE>

  Exhibit 10(i) - Amendment dated March 27, 2001 to the Mid America Bank, fsb
              Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan, as amended.
<PAGE>

                           CERTIFICATE OF RESOLUTION

I, Carolyn Pihera, do hereby certify that I am the duly elected and acting
Secretary of Mid America Bank, fsb, and the following is a true and correct copy
of certain resolutions adopted by the Board of Directors of said Bank at their
regular meeting held on March 27, 2001, at which meeting a quorum of the members
of said Board were present and acting throughout:

WHEREAS, the Mid America Federal Savings Bank Supplemental Executive Retirement
Plan (the "Plan") provides that a year of Plan Service shall not be credited to
a Participant for any calendar year following the year in which the Participant
attains the age of 65; and

WHEREAS, the Board desires to amend the Plan effective January 1, 2001, to
provide that Participants may receive credit for Plan Service up to and
including the year in which a participant reaches age 68;

WHEREAS, the Board further desires to amend the Plan effective January 1, 2001,
to clarify that a participant will not receive credit for a year of plan service
for periods ending prior to the effective time in which he or she is named a
participant in the Plan;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, that pursuant to Section 7.1 of the Plan,
Section 2.14 of the Plan is hereby amended and restated to read as follows:

     2.14  "Plan Service" means the number of full calendar years of
           participation in the Plan. A year of Plan Service shall be credited
           to a Participant as of each December 31/st/. The maximum number of
           years of Plan Service shall not exceed 20 years and a year of Plan
           Service shall not be credited to a Participant for any calendar year
           following the year in which the Participant attains the age of 68.

FURTHER RESOLVED, that the first sentence of Section 4.9 of the Plan is hereby
amended to read as follows:

     In the event of a Change in Control, a Participant (other than any
     Participant who is formerly an officer or director of Westco Bancorp, Inc.)
     shall be credited with an additional ten (10) years of Plan Service,
     however, in no event shall the Participant's total years of Plan Service
     exceed the lesser of 20 years or the Participant's projected years of Plan
     Service at age 68.

FURTHER RESOLVED, that in connection with the Bank's prior name change, all
references in the SERP to Mid America Federal Savings Bank, including in the
name of the plan, shall be changed to Mid America Bank, fsb.

                                       2
<PAGE>

I do further certify that the foregoing resolution has not been altered or
amended, but remains in force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed this Certificate and affixed the Bank's seal
this 2/nd/ day of April, 2001.

/s/ Carolyn Pihera
------------------
Corporate Secretary

                                       3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         142,688
<SECURITIES>                                     3,600
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,462
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               169,458
<PP&E>                                          23,559
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,287
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 192,860
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          231,942
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        26,583
<OTHER-SE>                                   (671,665)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   192,860
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               930,042
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (930,042)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (930,042)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (930,042)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Approved for Release: 2018/02/01 C051 0196~L -A -4 

fif;r:'J ~I LJOL A 5 ~~\Ui~\;.~ ~ J. --

HANDLE VIA 

~ NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111III 14 00024399D 

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR 

HAND"E ViA 

r~:):\j 

k;I' t: 

CONT~DL SYSTEM 

July 3, 1967 

MEMORANDUM FOR DR. FLAX 

SUBJECT: Decontrol and Downgrading of Satellite Photography 

Would you be good enough to look this over and see if 

we have written what you prefer on the subject of "Decontrol." 

General Berg and Colonel Worthman are satisfied . 

. ~ I~/ p(, / I '\ 

Jap}0s Q. Reber 

Attachments 

Ltr to Mr. Helms 

USIB-D-41.12/28 

EXCLUDED FROM AUTOMATIC REGRADING 

DOD 'OlliECTIVE 5200.10 DOES "lOT APPLY 

Approved for Release: 2018/02/01 C05101968 

CONTROLNO Internal COPY ___ OF ___ COPiES 

PAGE __ 1~_ OF_~I=--_ PAGES 

... 

-
Approved for Release: 2018/02/01 C05101968 HMWlE VIA 

'1~I"!"".u t; ~'i\r; ~,~ "\~-'itll tl 

" ...:I~t;~I1 ... ~ n\~F"i':,r: f'J; p,~ D if i.~v'jJ.H;;J 

).8"( NATiONAL RECONNA!SSANCE OFFICE 

WASHiNGTON, D.C. 

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR 

Dear Dick: 

Let me refer to the docume.l t on ttDecontrol and Downgrading of Satellite PhotograPh~'tt (USIB-D-41.12/28) which 

is currently distributed to the Board for its concurrence. 

Jim Reber has told me of his di,cussion with you on that 

subject. 

CONTROL SYSTEM 

If this paper is approved ~ith its provision for 

treating the fact of satellite ~hotographic reconnaissance 

at no higher than the SECRET clwssification, it will have 

an impact on the BYEMAN Securit~ Control System the extent 

of which we are currently explorfng as well as what actions 

must be taken with regard to th8J!t System. In this we expect 

to work closely with COMIREX as lit develops the procedures 

f or carrying out this decis ion. ~ 

I would like to suggest for consideration that the new 

Presidential Directive, a draft of which was circulated 

wi th the subject paper...r: include some statement to the effect 

that it is national ~licy that the fact of such a program 

is not to be disc sed publicly by officers of the United 

States Gover ent. rt:4 ~a.r_r,..,a~ ~~:;1- o "-. ..;; (J .. li--l1 

Honorable Richard Helms 

Director of Central Intelligence 

Central Intelligence Agency 

Washington, D. C. 

~~~ 

~~~~~ A ~ • 

Sincerely, 

~-;:~ 

Alexander H Flax C!!'~1 .r'f2:1 . V" ~;:;t 

4sect?er e-e~-::::: /) ~ ~ 

1 / ~?C;:;:...;..-~ ~~~ . ",.../' '--;? .. 

/,If::;') , A 

~~~ ' 

'~;f'''A ,-;;..-"~ 

TCf'J 

~0~~::ll ~~~ CONTRDlhO ______ _ 

co py_-;:;-_ 0 '_-:;;-_ co P l:E S 

EXCLUDE:O ~ROM AUTOMATIC REGRADING PAOE_.....;l:::::.-.._ 0, __ 1 __ PAGES 

DOD DIRECTIVE 5200.10 DOES NOT APPLY 

Approved for Release: 2018/02/01 C05101968 

... 

..
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1342 

To require the Secretary of Energy to conduct a study and issue a report 

that quantifies the energy savings benefits of operational efficiency programs and services for commercial, institutional, industrial, and governmental entities. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 14, 2015 

Ms. WARREN (for herself and Mr. CRAPO) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Energy to conduct a study and 

issue a report that quantifies the energy savings benefits 

of operational efficiency programs and services for commercial, institutional, industrial, and governmental entities. 

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

3 SECTION 1. STUDY AND REPORT ON ENERGY SAVINGS BEN4 EFITS OF OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY PRO5 GRAMS AND SERVICES. 

6 (a) DEFINITION OF OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY PRO7 GRAMS AND SERVICES.—In this section, the term ‘‘operVerDate Sep 11 2014 05:54 May 20, 2015 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1342.IS S1342

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1342 IS

1 ational efficiency programs and services’’ means programs 

2 and services that use information and communications 

3 technologies (including computer hardware, energy effi4 ciency software, and power management tools) to operate 

5 buildings and equipment in the optimum manner at the 

6 optimum times. 

7 (b) STUDY AND REPORT.—Not later than 1 year 

8 after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 

9 Energy shall conduct a study and issue a report that 

10 quantifies the energy savings benefits of operational effi11 ciency programs and services for commercial, institutional, 

12 industrial, and governmental entities, including Federal 

13 agencies. 

14 (c) MEASUREMENT AND VERIFICATION OF ENERGY

15 SAVINGS.—The report required under this section shall 

16 recommend methodologies or protocols for utilities, utility 

17 regulators, and Federal agencies to evaluate, measure, and 

18 verify energy savings from operational efficiency programs 

19 and services. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
."Artel

IMEMINIPI:11111

jA:: ts 111 2 45

'-')G1(0

SA: S5

/1819112

IT

1E PRES, AN ESTIMATE OF

TIE MINK LEVEL OF EFFORT OF CONTRACTOR PERSONIEL

PARTICIPATION IN SIPPORT OF TIE MP ON EITNER A FILL•

TINE OR PIRT•TINE OASIS. 111FORMATION TO HELM 001$

MOT *111 COVERT CONTRACTS. KOUT THAT TON PROVIDE

AN ESTIMATE OF THE KISER OF MIN MIMS PER FISCAL TEAR

WORM BY PERSOMM. MOM CONTRACTS NMI CH TOO

MNINISTER IN SWINT OF TIE MP. LIST ESTIINITE FOR

AIRCRAFT AIM SATELLITES SEPARATELY NT LISTIIM INNEN

00111 IV 11111111RWL CONTRACTOR IS NOT NECESSMT. REPORT

27 JAMMU IRO PROJECT OFFICER IS COLONEL

ST

•

•

•

•

•

•

•
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1198 

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to exclude certain medical 

sources of evidence in making disability determinations. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 5, 2015 

Mr. HATCH (for himself and Mr. LANKFORD) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to exclude 

certain medical sources of evidence in making disability 

determinations. 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Improving the Integ3 rity of Disability Evidence Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN MEDICAL SOURCES OF 

5 EVIDENCE. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 223(d)(5) of the Social 

7 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 423(d)(5)) is amended by adding 

8 at the end the following: 

9 ‘‘(C)(i) In making any determination with respect to 

10 whether an individual is under a disability or continues 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1198 IS

1 to be under a disability, the Commissioner of Social Secu2 rity may not consider (except for good cause as determined 

3 by the Commissioner) any evidence furnished by— 

4 ‘‘(I) any individual or entity who has been con5 victed of a felony under section 208 or under section 

6 1632; 

7 ‘‘(II) any individual or entity who has been ex8 cluded from participation in any Federal health care 

9 program under section 1128; or 

10 ‘‘(III) any person with respect to whom a civil 

11 money penalty or assessment has been imposed 

12 under section 1129 for the submission of false evi13 dence. 

14 ‘‘(ii) To the extent and at such times as is necessary 

15 for the effective implementation of clause (i) of this sub16 paragraph— 

17 ‘‘(I) the Inspector General of the Social Secu18 rity Administration shall transmit to the Commis19 sioner information relating to persons described in 

20 subclause (I) or (III) of clause (i); 

21 ‘‘(II) the Secretary of Health and Human Serv22 ices shall transmit to the Commissioner information 

23 relating to persons described in subclause (II) of 

24 clause (i); and’’. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1198 IS

1 (b) REGULATIONS.—Not later than 1 year after the 

2 date of the enactment of this Act, the Commissioner of 

3 Social Security shall issue regulations to carry out the 

4 amendment made by subsection (a). 

5 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

6 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to determinations 

7 of disability made on or after the earlier of— 

8 (1) the effective date of the regulations required 

9 to be issued by the Commissioner of Social Security 

10 under subsection (b); or 

11 (2) the date that is 1 year after the date of the 

12 enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Gilbert, Respondent, vs. Hoard, Appellant.

*April 2*

April *29, 1930.*

*573For the appellant there was a brief by *Hooker. & Wagner*of Waupun, and oral argument by *E. W. Hooker.*

For the respondent there was a brief by *Clark & Lueck*of Beaver Dam, and oral argument by *Arthur W. Lueck.*

Fowler, J.

The plaintiff moved to strike certain allegations from -defendant’s answer on the ground that they did not constitute a defense. The court granted the motion to strike. The defendant appeals from the order granting the motion.

It has been definitely decided by this court that an order striking matter from a complaint on the ground that it is irrelevant is not appealable. *Wiesmann v. Shanley,*124 Wis. 431, 102 N. W. 932. Following this it was decided that an order striking matter from an answer as irrelevant is not appealable. *Gooding v. Doyle,*134 Wis. 623, 115 N. W. 114; *State v. Lewis,*164 Wis. 363, 159 N. W. 746. To challenge matter as not defensive as is here done is in effect the same as to challenge it as irrelevant. The court has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from a non-appealable order (*Wiesmann v. Shanley,*supra) ; and jurisdiction to entertain such an appeal cannot be conferred by consent. *Hyde v. German Nat. Bank,*96 Wis. 406, 71 N. W. 659; *In re Minnesota & Wisconsin R. Co.*103 Wis. 191, 79 N. W. 753; *Wisconsin Real Estate Co. v. Milwaukee,*151 Wis. 198, 201, 138 N. W. 642.

An order granting a motion to-strike out a portion of an answer pleaded as a separate defense may be reviewed on appeal on the ground that it is in effect an order sustaining a demurrer. *Wisconsin F. & F. B. Co. v. Southern S. Co.*188 Wis. 383, 206 N. W. 204. But this does not warrant *574reviewing an appeal from an order striking out a portion of an answer not so pleaded, as a demurrer does not lie to a portion not so pleaded. *Gooding v. Doyle, supra.*It seems manifest that before one can demur or give effect as a demurrer to a motion to strike a portion of an answer on the ground that it does not constitute a defense, he must require the defendant to state his defenses separately, if more than one be stated.

We call attention to the case of *Home Acres Co. v. Swenson-Dibble L. Co.*179 Wis. 556, 192 N. W. 42, wherein an appeal from an order striking out portions of an answer and counterclaim was entertained and the order reversed. The right of appeal was not challenged in that case and neither the rule of practice or as to jurisdiction as laid down in the cases first cited was called to the attention of or considered by the court. The case last cited, so far as it conflicts with the established practice and rule, is overruled.

*By the Court.*— The appeal is dismissed.
#### MONTGOMERY ENGINEERING COMPANY, a New Jersey Corporation, and William Hecht and May Belle Hecht, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America.

No. 15075.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued March 30, 1965.

Decided April 20, 1965.

*997Murry D. Brochin, Lowenstein & Spic-er, Newark, N. J. (Benedict M. Kohl, Newark, N. J., on the brief), for appellants.

Thomas Silk, Atty., Dept, of Justice, Tax Div., Washington, D. C. (Louis F. Oberdorfer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, Loring Post, Attys., Dept, of Justice, David M. Satz, Jr., U. S. Atty., Edward J. Turnbach, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., on the brief), for ap-pellee.

Before HASTIE and FREEDMAN, Circuit Judges, and WEBER, District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

This case involves the tax treatment of $50,000 paid out of the funds of a closely held corporation, controlled by its president and principal stockholder William Hecht, upon the' death of Oscar Nicholson, a corporate officer and director, to the widow of the decedent-who had been bitterly estranged from her husband for some nine years. The Commissioner disallowed a claimed corporate deduction of this payment as a business expense and, in addition, ruled that it was taxable to William Hecht as a constructive dividend. The corporation and Hecht, having paid the resultant assessments under protest, brought this suit for refunds.

The district court found that “the reason for the $50,000 payment to Mrs. Nicholson was that Mr. Hecht felt that he had a personal moral duty to right the wrong which he felt her husband had done to her and her children. His motivation was a purely personal one, that is he, as a human being who had known both husband and wife and their family for many years during which they helped his business grow and prosper, felt obligated to correct an injustice which had grown out of what he regarded as an unfortunate bitterness between the Nicholsons”. Our examination of the record satisfies us that this finding was not clearly erroneous.

“ Although payment was made by the corporation directly to Mrs. Nicholson pursuant to the vote of its directors, the quoted finding provided adequate support for the court’s conclusion that the questioned transaction was not an allowable corporate business expense but was a disbursement in the nature of a dividend paid in accordance with the wishes of William Hecht to accomplish a personal act of kindness motivated by his estimable sense of generosity and moral obligation.

The judgment will be affirmed.
#### State ex rel. Murphy, Appellant, vs. Cummings, Judge of the Civil Court, etc., Respondent.

For the appellant: *Max Myseli*of Milwaukee.

For the respondent: *Clarence W. Dodson*of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.