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

[Federal Register: June 22, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 119)]
[Notices]               
[Page 35447]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr22jn10-42]                         

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

 
Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Oak Ridge 
Reservation

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental 
Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Oak Ridge 
Reservation. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 
Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in 
the Federal Register.

DATES: Wednesday, July 14, 2010, 6 p.m.

ADDRESSES: DOE Information Center, 475 Oak Ridge Turnpike, Oak Ridge, 
Tennessee.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia J. Halsey, Federal 
Coordinator, Department of Energy Oak Ridge Operations Office, P.O. Box 
2001, EM-90, Oak Ridge, TN 37831. Phone (865) 576-4025; Fax (865) 576-
2347 or e-mail: halseypj@oro.doe.gov or check the Web site at http://www.oakridge.doe.gov/em/ssab.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make 
recommendations to DOE-EM and site management in the areas of 
environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities.
    Tentative Agenda: The main meeting presentation will be Long-Term 
Stewardship for Contaminated Areas on the Oak Ridge Reservation.
    Public Participation: The EM SSAB, Oak Ridge, welcomes the 
attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will 
make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or 
special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a 
disability, please contact Patricia J. Halsey at least seven days in 
advance of the meeting at the phone number listed above. Written 
statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the 
meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to the 
agenda item should contact Patricia J. Halsey at the address or 
telephone number listed above. Requests must be received five days 
prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include 
the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer 
is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate 
the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public 
comments will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their 
comments.
    Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing or calling Patricia 
J. Halsey at the address and phone number listed above. Minutes will 
also be available at the following Web site: http://www.oakridge.doe.gov/em/ssab/minutes.htm.

    Issued at Washington, DC, on June 15, 2010.
Rachel Samuel,
Deputy Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010-15026 Filed 6-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```
[LETTERHEAD OF MCGLADREY & PULLEN, LLP]

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2


                           INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT

         We hereby  consent to the  incorporation  by  reference  of our report,
dated  October 27,  1999,  as it pertains to the audited  balance  sheet of Wake
Forest  Bancshares,  Inc. as of September 30, 1999 and the related statements of
income,  changes in stockholders' equity and cash flows for the year then ended,
included  in this Form 10 KSB/A of Wake  Forest  Bancshares,  Inc.  for the year
ended September 30, 2000 in the previously filed Registration  Statement of Wake
Forest Bancshares, Inc. on Form S-8 (333-83875).


/s/ McGladrey & Pullen, LLP
---------------------------
McGladrey & Pullen, LLP

January 30, 2001
Raleigh, North Carolina
#### Stacy WINTERS Petitioner-Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America Respondent-Appellee

No. 16-3902

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: June 15, 2017

Filed: June 20, 2017

Neil Fulton, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Pierre, SD, for Petitioner-Appellant

Stacy Winters, Pro Se

Kevin Koliner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office District of South Dakota,. Sioux Falls, SD, for Respondent-Appellee

Before BENTON, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Having received a certificate of appeala-bility from the district court, federal prisoner Stacy Winters directly appeals the district court’s1 denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his conviction un*287der 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). His motion was based on Johnson v. United States, — U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015). After carefully reviewing the record, as well as the parties’ arguments and suggestions on appeal, we affirm. See United States v. Prickett, 839 F.3d 697 (8th Cir. 2016) (per curiam), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Dec. 28, 2016); see also 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Lawrence- L. Piersol, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota,
#### Jorge BARROSO-VARGAS, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-70841

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 *

OCTOBER 2, 2017

Jorge Barroso-Vargas, Henderson, NV, pro se.

OIL, Annette Marie Wietecha, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*454MEMORANDUM **

Jorge Barroso-Vargas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying cancellation of removal and denying his motion to remand. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to remand. *Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey,*538 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of cancellation of removal for failure to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative, and Barroso-Vargas does not raise a color-able legal or constitutional claim that would invoke our jurisdiction. *See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder,*688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (absent a colorable legal or constitutional claim, the court lacks jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary hardship determination).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Barroso-Vargas’ motion to remand because the BIA considered the evidence that he submitted and acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence was insufficient to establish pri-ma facie eligibility for cancellation of removal. *See Singh v. INS,*295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (The BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed only if it is “arbitrary, irrational or contrary to law.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit
      32.1











CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO


18
        U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002














In
        connection with the Quarterly Report of Capital Corp of the West (the "Company")
        on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the
        Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
        Thomas
        T. Hawker, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
        pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
        the
        Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(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:
                November 9, 2006
            By:/s/
                Thomas T. HawkerThomas
                T. HawkerPresident
                andChief
                Executive Officer
<PAGE>

Exhibit 99.2  Press Release



PRESS RELEASE
February 25, 2000                  For further information contact:
                                   David M. Bradley
                                   Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer
                                   North Central Bancshares, Inc.
                                   825 Central Avenue
                                   Fort Dodge, Iowa 50501
                                   515-576-7531



                         NORTH CENTRAL BANCSHARES, INC.
                             INCREASES DIVIDEND 25%

David M. Bradley, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of North
Central Bancshares, Inc. (the "Company") announced today that the Company
declared a regular quarterly cash dividend of $0.125 per share on the Company's
common stock for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2000.  This amount is an
increase of 25% compared to the previous dividend rate.  The dividend will be
payable to all stockholders of record as of March 16, 2000 and will be paid on
April 6, 2000.

North Central Bancshares, Inc. serves north central and southeastern Iowa at 8
full service locations in Fort Dodge, Nevada, Ames, Burlington, Mount Pleasant
and Perry, Iowa through its wholly-owned subsidiary, First Federal Savings Bank
of Iowa, headquartered in Fort Dodge, Iowa.  The Bank's deposits are insured by
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.  The Company's stock is traded on The
Nasdaq National Market under the symbol "FFFD".
#### Artashes PETROSYAN, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 10-71729

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 22, 2016 * Pasadena, California

Lisa Anderson, Attorney, Varzandeh Anderson LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner

Artashes Petrosyan, Pro Se

OIL, Michele Yvette Frances Sarko, Esquire, Attorney, Sunah Lee, Trial Attorney, DOJ—U.S; Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: KOZINSKI, W. FLETCHER and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

1. We deny Petrosyan’s petition for review of the agency’s denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of removal because the agency’s adverse credibility finding was supported by substantial evidence. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). In his declaration, Petrosyan described his personal experience using similar or identical language to portions of an earlier published Human Rights Watch article. Petrosyan attributes the similarity to the fact that many people were at the described rally. But this doesn’t address why his account of the events repeats sentences and details from the Human Rights Watch article verbatim. Absent a plausible explanation, the agency reasonably concluded that Petro-syan’s account of the alleged persecution was not genuine.

The agency’s adverse credibility finding is further supported by the discrepancies between Petrosyan’s testimony and his aunt’s. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii). His aunt failed to corroborate Petrosyan’s testimony that he had been arrested in Armenia. Instead, she testified that she didn’t know anyone in the family, other than Petrosyan’s father, who had been arrested in Armenia. She also testified that she thought Petrosyan’s father was still in Armenia when Petrosyan departed Armenia for the United States, even though Petrosyan testified that his father left Armenia before he did.

2. Petrosyan waived his claim for protection under the Convention Against Torture by failing to raise it in his opening brief. See Balser v. Dep’t. of Justice, 327 F.3d 903, 911 (9th Cir. 2003). But even if it wasn’t waived, this claim would fail because other than his own incredible testimony, Petrosyan doesn’t point to any evidence that compels us to conclude that it’s more likely than not that he would be tortured if returned to Armenia.

DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
MB No.: L 13/082a 

Concerning: Gliders L 13, L 13A, L 13AC Blanik 

Reason: Prevention of the elevator drive inverted adjustment (180°) during its 

reinstallation back on the Glider. 

To be carried out at the latest by: At the next A-type Periodical Inspection. 

To be carried out by: Operator. 

Costs to be covered by: Operator. 

Necessary material to be supplied by: Operator. 

Bulletin becomes effective: Upon the issue date. 

Work to be invested (man-hours): 0.3 

Total number of sheets: 4 

~~u. 

Fridrich ~ . . . . . . . . .. .. . .. .. .... . .. ···· ··· ···· ····· ··· ····· ........ . 

Manufacturer 

Engineering data contained in this Bulletin is CAl Approved. 

Date: December 10,1998 

LET, a.s., Kunovice 686 04, Czech Republic, tel.: +420 632 55 44 96, fax: +420 632 611 26, e-mail: ols@lel.cz 
3. Maintain this mark during whole the operation time. 

Assembling 

Set the tail cover to its original position. 

B. MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR ONE AIRCRAFT MODIFICATION 

The operator will use his own material. 

c. PICTURE PART 

Fig. No.1 

D. NECESSARY DOCUMENTATION 

No effect. 

E. NECESSARY TOOLS 

No effect. 

F. SPARE PARTS IN OPERATION 

No effect. 

G. AIRCRAFT WEIGHT 

No effect. 

Sheet: 2 

L 13/082a 

Of: 4 
G. ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTATION 

No effect. 

Sheet: 3 

L 13/082a 

Of: 4 
X · 

Sheet : 4 

L 13/082a 

Of: 4
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Reynaldo Antonio ULLOA-ARGUETA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-41423 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed May 2, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Reynaldo Antonio Ulloa-Argueta, Pro Se

Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Reynaldo Antonio Ulloa-Ar-gueta has moved for leave to withdraw and *230has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Ulloa-Argueta has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cíe. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph Martinez, Appellant.

[770 NYS2d 656]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated June 9, 1986 *(People v Martinez,*121 AD2d 475 [1986]), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered October 24, 1984.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]). Ritter, J.P., Santucci, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Roman SALDIVAR-VASQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-40484 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed May 10, 2017

Eileen K Wilson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Roman Saldivar-Vasquez, Pro Se

Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Roman Saldivar-Vasquez appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation following a felony conviction in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1). He argues that the district court plainly erred in assessing him a 16-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) (2015) due to his three prior Texas felony convictions for burglary of a habitation, in violation of Tex. Penal Code § 30.02(a)(1), which the district court characterized as crimes of violence. *See United States v.*
      *306
      *Conde-Castaneda,*753 F.3d 172, 176 (5th Cir. 2014) (holding that § 30.02(a) is divisible and reiterating that offenses under § 30.02(a)(1) qualify as generic burglary). Saldivar-Velasquez argues that his convictions do not qualify as crimes of violence under § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) in light of *Mathis v. United States,*— U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 2243, 195 L.Ed.2d 604 (2016).

Because Saldivar-Vasquez did not object to the 16-level enhancement, our review is for plain error. *United States*v *Chavez-Hernandez,*671 F.3d 494, 497 (5th Cir. 2012). To establish plain error, Saldivar-Vasquez must demonstrate a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. *See Puckett v. United States,*556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009). If Saldivar-Vasquez makes such a showing, this court has the discretion to correct the error if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. *Id.*

This court recently revisited the holding in *Conde-Castaneda*in light of *Mathis. See United States v. Uribe,*838 F.3d 667, 670 (5th Cir. 2016), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 1359, 197 L.Ed.2d 542 (2017). In *Uribe,*the court decided that § 30.02(a) “is elements-based, it is divisible and the modified categorical approach applies.” *Uribe,*838 F.3d at 671. Thus, *Conde-Castaneda*remains binding precedent, and the district court did not err in treating Saldivar-Vas-quez’s Texas burglary convictions under § 30.02(a)(1) as crimes of violence.

AFFIRMED.

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001004941
<NAME>                        ALAMO RENT-A-CAR, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                    Sep-30-1996
<CASH>                          35,289
<SECURITIES>                    59,160
<RECEIVABLES>                   264,267
<ALLOWANCES>                    (3,897)
<INVENTORY>                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                0
<PP&E>                          334,961
<DEPRECIATION>                  (119,161)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  2,875,209
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           0
<BONDS>                         2,488,309
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<COMMON>                        5
<OTHER-SE>                      60,694
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    2,875,209
<SALES>                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                1,177,748
<CGS>                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   344,352
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                709,295
<LOSS-PROVISION>                2,462
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              111,432
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 12,107
<INCOME-TAX>                    1,900
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             10,207
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    10,207
<EPS-PRIMARY>                   0
<EPS-DILUTED>                   0
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ignacio RODRIGUEZ-CEPEDA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-41244 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 18, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Ignacio Rodríguez-Cepeda, Pro Se

Before KING, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ignacio Rodriguez-Cepeda has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Rodriguez-Cepeda has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Rodriguez-Cepeda’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the *265appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, Rodriguez-Cepeda’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2; *United States v. Wagner,*158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998).

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has. determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
June 10, 2015 

 

 

Mr. Stephen Blenkhorn 

P.O. Box 203 

Edgecomb, ME 04556 

Dear Mr. Blenkhorn: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It 

explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your May 11, 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-

1546), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does 

not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request 

any further, you must send us all of the following: 

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division 

Enclosure