alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

YONI FEDERICO GRAMAJO

MONTERROSO and RUTH A.

RODRIGUEZ,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 11-70443

Agency Nos. A070-857-782

 A099-054-660

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 9, 2012** 

Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Yoni Federico Gramajo Monterroso and Ruth A. Rodriguez, natives and

citizens of Guatemala, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration

Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reconsider the BIA’s earlier

FILED

OCT 15 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-70443

decision dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. Our

jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the

denial of a motion to reconsider, and review de novo due process challenges.

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 BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to

reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of law or fact in the

BIA’s October 7, 2010, order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). Petitioners’

contention that the denial of their motion to reconsider violated due process

therefore fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring

error and substantial prejudice for a due process violation). 

To the extent that petitioners challenge the BIA’s underlying order

dismissing their appeal, we lack jurisdiction because this petition is not timely as to

that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (petitions for review must be filed within 30

days of the final order of removal); Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.

2003). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
# II

DJI FC40 QUICK ST A RT GUIDE


# II

LE A RN M O R E: W W W.DJI. COM 

# INSTALL DJI FC40 TO AIRCRAFT**g;;~** 

### DJI FC40infrH A Use the mounting kit in the 

### PHANTOM package.**iilllPHANTOM~~Jii(I!JJifUH!f**



# CD First, put the three dampeners (rubber balls) on the camera frame.**;t;ll!!:=:1'llf.lilllil<*~!!lJffim~!llt.t.**



# INSTALL DJI FC40 APP**g;;~DJI** 

### FC40 APP



# f9 Available on the 

# bd AppStore

13rat=itii!;l Scan 

### the QR 

### Code 

### To Download iOS / Android App 

# II



# a INSERT THE MICRO-SO CARD tiliJ\Micro-SD-F



# CONNECT TO THE CAMERA**~timm**

(...,.... ] WI-FI ( WI-FI 

# CID]

Choose a Network •.

DJI 

### FAPl ..{ FC40..XXXXXX 

# II INSTALL THE CAMERA**g;;~m m** 



# DJI FC40 FEATURES**1~I mm** **~**

LED S T A TU S 

### :m;r-:ey 

# \

# ~©) ": n-

# PO**v:~~;r N** **~** 7 M I CRO.USBPOR T 

# ©

M i c r o- US Bfi[]
- {] 

# 0
MICRO.SD CARD SLOT 

# n •:• 

# u**"' "•** **'"' m'"-~** 

A Please use the Micro-USB interface for charging.

ljljl!lM i cro-USB!i D i!fi:l'CIIl. REC ORD BUTT ON 

### lil: i l:JF;l< 

# I ® • 

# • TURN ON THE CAMERA**Hf ~tfiS** **mfll.**



# GUIDE FOR CAMERA B U T T ONS & 

# LED ' !lm1.
- Mil &**EDt~ii** CAM E RA B UTT O N S**«Jm~tli** 1. T o Power Off : Press tho Power Button fo r 5 sec. 

### ;l<f;ll :**lll.il!i~#illl.il!i#ifl! tl;l<f;lllll.il!l** **.** 2. T o R ec ord : Press t he R ecord Button f or 3 s e c . 

### il!it : * #iil!itti:fll3t) .

COH D I T I

O HS**:tit~** S T A TU S I ND I

CA

T OR**:t!t~lll;f.:IJ** Record in g 

### i!il 

# •••• C hargm g 

### J'elll. 

# •••••• Charged 

### l't: illll. L ow Power ill:II!.Bi 

# •••••• Powe r Off 

### >< iil ll!.il.l! Auto Powe r Off**S~!lilf;fiJl!l'** 

# •••• ( 5 M l n s I

dl e) 

### >< lflll!.ill! WI - F I Conn ecting W I - FI Iitll 

# •••••• Memory F ul**~'fi!Billlil~** 

# •••••• Mic:roSDCa.-d E nc r**~'fi<T-IU!**
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-29-2000
<CASH>                                           2,367
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,731
<ALLOWANCES>                                       388
<INVENTORY>                                     70,178
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                92,584
<PP&E>                                          25,082
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 149,101
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           30,432
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        64,320
<OTHER-SE>                                      20,467
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   149,101
<SALES>                                        284,673
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                          178,705
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   93,251
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (1,338)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,795
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,260
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,503
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,757
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,757
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .74
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .74


</TABLE>
*This opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d) (2000). UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6565
JAMES C. MCNEILL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DENNIS VANBUREN, Second Shift Lieutenant; BENJAMIN LEA, Second Shift Sergeant; SHARON SNYDER, LPN; ELEXIA CRAIG, LPN; MARY WATSON, RN; CORRECTIONS OFFICER ROYSTER, Second Shift Correctional Officer; HOWARD CRABTREE, Second Shift Correctional Officer; CURTIS MAGNUM, Second Shift Correctional Officer; ASHANTI WILLIAMS, Second Shift Correctional Officer; JAMES WILLIAMS, Second Shift Correctional Officer; NORWOOD, Second Shift Correctional Officer; LINDA MORGAN, Third Shift Correctional Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-03-120-5-BO) Submitted: June 12, 2003 Decided: June 19, 2003 Before LUTTIG and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. *23 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James C. McNeill, Appellant Pro Se. Deborrah Lynn Newton, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: James C. McNeill, a North Carolina inmate, appeals the district court’s order di smissing his claims against several defendants on his complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000), but maintaining the action as to other defendants. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order appealed from is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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 32.2****(1)**

 

**STATEMENTOF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 1350**

 

I, Shelly Schaffer, thechief financial officer of SupportSoft, Inc. (the “Company”), certify forthe purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United StatesCode that, to the best of my knowledge,

 
| (i)    |   | the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q  for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 (the “Report”), fully complies with  the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of  1934, and |
|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                |
| (ii)   |   | the information contained in the Report fairly  presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of  operations of the Company.                                                                              |

 
|                        |                               |
|------------------------|------------------------------------|
| ** **             |                               |
| Date: May 9, 2008 | /s/ SHELLY  SCHAFFER               |
|                   | **Shelly  Schaffer**               |
|                   | **Chief  Financial Officer and**   |
|                   | **Executive  Vice President**      |
|                   | **of  Finance and Administration** |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by 18 U.S.C. § 1350 has been provided to SupportSoft, Inc.and will be retained by SupportSoft, Inc. and furnished to the Securitiesand Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----

(1)                                     The material contained in this Exhibit 32.2is not deemed “filed” with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by referenceinto any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, whether made before or after the date hereofand irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in suchfiling, except to the extent that the registrant specifically incorporates itby reference.

 

----
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

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 grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel; Mentoring Programs for HIV/AIDS Researchers 2.                    

*Date:*                         March 30, 2015.                    

*Time:*                         11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Aileen Schulte, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Mental Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., Room 6140, MSC 9608, Bethesda, MD 20892-9608, 301-443-1225,                         *aschulte@mail.nih.gov*

This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.242, Mental Health Research Grants, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: March 27, 2015.

Carolyn A. Baum,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2015-07507 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE CODE 4140-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 64 (Friday, April 3, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 18283]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07604]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Transit Administration

[FTA Docket No. FTA-2015-0004]


Special Notice; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) published a 30-Day 
Notice of Request for Comments in the Federal Register on March 17, 
2015 Vol. 80 No. 51 entitled; ``49 U.S.C. 5335(a) and (b) National 
Transit Database Program.'' The notice contained an incorrect estimated 
total annual burden on respondents. This document corrects that error.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tia Swain, Office of Administration, 
Office of Management Planning, (202) 366-0354.

Correction

    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 302,400 hours.

Matthew M. Crouch,
Associate Administrator for Administration.
[FR Doc. 2015-07604 Filed 4-2-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE P
EXHIBIT 32.2(1)

STATEMENT OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER UNDER 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350

I, Shelly Schaffer, the chief financial officer of SupportSoft, Inc. (the Company), certify for the purposes of section
1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code that, to the best of my knowledge,



|(i) | the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                  |  |  |  |                                                                                                
|----------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                  |  | 
|Date: May 8, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ Shelly Schaffer                                                                            
|                  |  |  |  | Shelly Schaffer Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President of Finance and Administration

A signed original of this written statement required by 18 U.S.C. § 1350 has been provided to
SupportSoft, Inc. and will be retained by SupportSoft, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



|(1) | The material contained in this Exhibit 32.2 is not deemed filed with the SEC and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, whether made before or after the date hereof and irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such
filing, except to the extent that the registrant specifically incorporates it by reference.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### Ayres and another vs. The Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company.

*October 24*

*November*20, *1883.*

*Pleading*— Indejiniteness.

1. In an action to recover damages occasioned by the defendant’s failure to furnish cars for the shipment of stock at the time agreed, and by a failure to transport such stock with reasonable diligence, the complaint should show what part of the total delay was occasioned by the failure to furnish cars, and what part occurred *en route.*

2. Thus a complaint alleging failure to furnish the cars for “several days ” after the time agreed on, and that the total delay in the delivery of the stock was “about four days,” should be made more definite and certain by amendment.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for *Bcmli*County.

The facts in this case are substantially the same as in the case of *Richardson v. C. & N. W. R'y*Co., *ante,*p. 534, except as to the allegation of the complaint in respect to the *538delay, which is set forth in the opinion. The stock was to be shipped from Lavalle and Reedsburg to Chicago.

*Wm. F.*Vilas, for the appellant.

For the respondents the cause was argued orally by *J. W. Lush.*

Obtom, J.

That part of the order denying the motion of the defendant to make the complaint more definite and certain is appealed from. As said in reference to a similar complaint in a previous case on this call, “ there appears to be no indefiniteness or uncertainty about the allegations of the complaint, except it may be in the matter of damages. Most of the other defects in this respect, complained of, concern facts more especially within the knowledge of the defendant. But, in respect to the damages complained of, it is proper that the defendant should be informed what part of such damages is claimed to have arisen from the failure to furnish the cars in proper time as agreed, and what part is claimed to have arisen by the negligent running of the train and delays on the route.” The language of this complaint in that respect is different from that in the other case. In that case the delay in not furnishing the cars as agreed, and the delay in the arrival of the stock in Chicago, is precisely the same, and there was no delay on the route, whatever, charged in the complaint. The allegation here is that the defendant “ neglected and refused to provide said cars at either station *for several days,*and when provided, neglected and refused to carry said stock to Chicago with reasonable diligence, and said plaintiffs arrived at Chicago *about four days*later than they would have done,” etc. Here part of the *several days’*delay in providing the cars may be a part of the *four days’*delay altogether, and what part of the delay is attributable to not providing cars, and what part to not carrying the stock to Chicago with reasonable diligence, is not stated in the complaint. Therein we think the com*539plaint is indefinite and uncertain, and should be reformed in that respect, and that that part of the motion should also have been granted.

*By the*Court.— That part of the order appealed from is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings according to law.
**BF** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21 - 0204 EMMANUEL F. GOMEZ ,

Petitioner and Appellant , v. STATE OF MONTANA ,

Respondent and Appellee .

**GRANT OF EXTENSION** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30 - day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is granted an extension of time to and including September 11 , 202 1 , within which to prepare, serve, and file its response brief .

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court August 10 2021

08/10/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0204
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA FILED

PR 06-0422

IN RE PETITION OF ALICIA KELLY FOR LEAVE )

TO SIT FOR THE JULY 2020 MONTANA BAR

EXAMINATION

MAR 1 7 2020

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of Supreme Court

O R D tite cf 

Montana

Alicia Kelly has petitioned for waiver of Rule I.C.1 of the Rules of Admission to

the State Bar of Montana, which provides that a student applicant to take the bar

examination "must have a Juris Doctoe' degree at the time of the examination. Kelly will

complete the requirements for a Juris Doctorate from the Alexander Blewitt III School of

Law at the University of Montana on May 29, 2020, but her degree will not actually be

awarded by the University until August 14, 2020, about two weeks after the examination.

In her efforts to complete her degree requirements, Kelly was restricted by the limitation

on the number of credits that students may take in a semester. Having to wait until the

February 2021 administration of the examination would cause undue hardship for Kelly.

Rule VII.A. of the Rules of Admission provides that this Court "may, under

circumstances it deems sufficient, waive any requirement under these rules." Upon review

of the petition, we conclude that the circumstances presented, particularly, Kelly's

completion of all requirements for a Juris Doctorate prior to the examination, are sufficient

to justify waiver of the degree requirement so that Kelly may sit for the July 2020 Montana

Bar Examination. Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition of Alicia Kelly for waiver of Rule I.C.1

of the Rules of Admission to the State Bar of Montana, requiring a student applicant to

have a Juris Doctor degree at the time of examination, is GRANTED for purposes of the

July 2020 administration of the Montana Bar Examination.

Copies of this order shall be provided to the Petitioner and to the State Bar of

Montana.

DATED this 17- day of March, 2020.

03/17/2020

Case Number: PR 06-0422
Chief Justice

ustices

2