alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 39 (Monday, February 28, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 11051]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04136]



[[Page 11051]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[RTID 0648-XB842]


North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of webconference.

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

SUMMARY: The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) Bering 
Sea Fishery Ecosystem Plan Climate Change Taskforce will meet March 15, 
2022 through March 17, 2022.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Tuesday, March 15, 2022, through 
Thursday, March 17, 2022, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Alaska Time.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be a webconference. Join online through the 
link at https://meetings.npfmc.org/Meeting/Details/2853.
    Council address: North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 1007 W 
3rd Ave, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252; telephone: (907) 271-2809. 
Instructions for attending the meeting are given under SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION, below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Diana Stram, Council staff; phone: 
(907) 271-2809 and email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#17737e76797639646365767a577978767639707861"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f89c91999699d68b8c8a9995b896979999d69f978e">[email protected]</span></a>. For technical support, 
please contact our administrative staff; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6e001e08030d400f0a0307002e00010f0f40090118"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f39d83959e90dd92979e9a9db39d9c9292dd949c85">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Agenda

Tuesday, March 15, 2022 Through Thursday, March 17, 2022

    The agenda will include: (a) Review and revise draft Climate 
synthesis report; (b) review and discuss proposed Ecosystem matrix; (c) 
outline Climate Briefing report; and (d) contined work on process and 
other business. The agenda is subject to change, and the latest version 
will be posted at https://meetings.npfmc.org/Meeting/Details/2853 prior 
to the meeting, along with meeting materials.

Connection Information

    You can attend the meeting online using a computer, tablet, or 
smart phone; or by phone only. Connection information will be posted 
online at: https://meetings.npfmc.org/Meeting/Details/2853.

Public Comment

    Public comment letters will be accepted and should be submitted 
electronically to https://meetings.npfmc.org/Meeting/Details/2853.
    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: February 23, 2022.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National 
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-04136 Filed 2-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Christopher Montreal HEFFNER Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-4073

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: October 18, 2017

Filed: October 26, 2017

Martin Joseph McLaughlin, Lisa C. Williams, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Iowa, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Christopher Montreal Heffner, Pro Se

Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Christopher Montreal Heffner directly appeals after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, and the district court1 sentenced him within the calculated Guidelines range. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the district court erroneously applied an enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), and imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence.

We conclude that Heffner’s arguments challenging the section 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement are foreclosed by this court’s precedents. See, e.g., United States v. Walker, 771 F.3d 449, 452-53 (8th Cir. 2014). We further conclude that Heffner’s within-Guidelines-range sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (discussing appellate review of sentencing decisions; if sentence is within Guidelines range, appellate court may, but is not required to, apply presumption of reasonableness).

Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

1

. The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.
#### Richard A. WILLIAMSON, ON BEHALF OF and as Trustee for AT HOME BONDHOLDERS' LIQUIDATING TRUST, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CITRIX SYSTEMS, INC., Microsoft Corporation, Webex Communications, Inc., Cisco Webex, LLC, Cisco Systems, Inc., GetGo, Inc., Defendants-Appellees *957Adobe Systems, Inc., International Business Machines Corporation, Defendants

2016-1714

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 7, 2017

Brett Johnston Williamson, O’Melveny & Myers LLP, Newport Beach, CA, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by Tim D. Byron, San Francisco, Ca; Brian T. Bagley, Scott Dion Marrs, William C. Norvell, Jr., Akerman LLP, Houston, TX.

Jonathan J. Lamberson, Fish & Richardson, PC, Redwood City, CA, argued for all defendants-appellees. Defendants-appel-lees Citrix Systems, Inc., Microsoft Corporation, GetGo, Inc. also represented by Frank Scherkenbach, Kurt Louis Glitzen-stbin, Boston, MA; Craig E. Countryman, San Diego, CA; Indranil Mukerji, Washington, DC. Defendant-appellee Microsoft Corporation also represented by Isabella Fu, Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA.

Harold Barza, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for defendant-appellees Webex Communications, Inc., Cisco Webex, LLC, Cisco Systems, Inc. Also represented by Tigran Guledjian, Jordan Brock Kaericher, Valerie Roddy.

(Moore, Linn, and Stoll, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
     FROM THE UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF JUNE 30, 1999
     AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
     JUNE 30, 1999 OF CARIBINER INTERNATIONAL, INC. AS SET FOURTH IN
     THIS FORUM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
     SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                     14,421
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                              117,011
<ALLOWANCES>                               3,484
<INVENTORY>                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           33,338
<PP&E>                                     213,963
<DEPRECIATION>                             (101,949)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             709,212
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      91,786
<BONDS>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                                   236
<OTHER-SE>                                 159,307
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               709,212
<SALES>                                    556,040
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           556,040
<CGS>                                      407,808
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           127,832
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           16,500
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         25,103
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (21,203)
<INCOME-TAX>                               6,997
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (21,203)
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                               (14,206)
<EPS-BASIC>                              (0.60)
<EPS-DILUTED>                              0.0



</TABLE>
498 A.2d 276

#### Harry EDWARDS and Joseph J. Caspar v. Lester KRAFT.

No. 18,

Sept. Term, 1985.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Oct. 4,1985.

Allen G. Windsor, Baltimore (David S. Harris, Baltimore, on brief), for appellant.

Submitted on brief by Charles A. Norris, Leonardtown, for appellee.

Argued before MURPHY, C.J., and SMITH, ELDRIDGE, COLE, RODOWSKY, COUCH and McAULIFFE, JJ.

ORDER

The petition for writ of certiorari in the above entitled case having been granted and heard, it is this 4th day of October, 1985

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals be, and it is

*179hereby, vacated and the case remanded to that Court for consideration in light of *Miner v. Novotny,*304 Md. 164, 498 A.2d 269 (1985) [No. 141, September Term, 1984, decided, October 4, 1985]. Costs to abide the result in the Court of Special Appeals. Mandate to be issued forthwith.
#### Catherine McGovern, Adm’rx, Resp’t, v. The Central Vermont R. R. Co., App’lt.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
#### Tony Lamont JONES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Eric D. WILSON, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-7425

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 20, 2017

Decided: April 27, 2017

Tony Lamont Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Kimere Jane Kimball, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Tony Lamont Jones, a former federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Jones v. Wilson,*No. 1:16-cv-00141-LMB-IDD (E.D. Va. filed Aug. 31, 2016 *&*entered Sept. 1, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
**EXHIBIT 23.01**
 
 CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
 
 
 We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form
S-3 (No. 333-120264) and the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-88513,
No. 333-39016, No. 333-75230, No. 333-89886 and No. 333-110131) of DSL.net,
Inc. **** of our
reports dated March 22, 2005, relating to the financial statements and the
financial statement schedule which appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
We also consent to the reference to us under the heading “Selected Financial
Data” in such Annual Report on Form 10-K.
  
 PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP
 
 Stamford,
CT
 March 22,
2005
#### Francisco SANCHEZ-GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-73881

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 20, 2017

Francisco Sanchez-Garcia, Pro Se

Michael Christopher Heyse, Trial Attorney, OIL, 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: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Francisco Sanchez-Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his motion for a continuance. Our jurisdiction is governed by U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance. *Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey,*526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying for lack of good cause Sanchez-Garcia’s motion for a continuance to file a second application for a U visa, where U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services had denied his first application based on the same facts. *See Singh v. Holder,*638 F.3d 1264, 1274 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[A]n IJ ‘may grant a motion for continuance for good cause shown.’” (citation omitted)). Sanchez-Garcia provided no evidence of having filed a new application, and the basis for the motion remained merely a speculative possibility at the time of his final removal *481hearing. *See id.*(“[T]he IJ [is] not required to grant a continuance based on ... speculations.”).

Sanchez-Garcia’s claim that the IJ violated due process by refusing to consider evidence is not supported by the record.

We lack jurisdiction to review Sanchez-Garcia’s unexhausted ineffective assistance of counsel claim. *See Ontiveros-Lopez v. I.N.S.,*213 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir. 2000) (an ineffective assistance of counsel claim must first be presented to the BIA, usually in a motion to reopen).

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.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10** 
**- 1134** 

WILFRED JINGWA AWUNG ,
Petitioner ,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR. , Attorney General,
Respondent

.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appe als.

Submitted : December 10, 2010 Decided: January 11 , 2011

Before MOTZ and KING , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

Danielle Beach

- Oswald, BEACH

- OSWALD IMMIGRATION LAW ASSOCI ATES, PC, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wernery, Assistant Director, Erica B. Miles, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Wilfred Jingwa Awung, a native and citizen of
Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the
Immigration Judge’s deni al of his application s for relief from

re moval.
Awung challenges the Board’s conclusion that he failed
to qualify for withholding of removal. “To qualify for
withholding of removal, a petitioner must show that he faces a
clear probability of persecuti on because of his race, religion,
nationality, membership in a particular social group, or
political opinion.” Rusu v. INS , 296 F.3d 316, 324 n.13 (4th
Cir. 2002) (citing INS v. Stevic , 467 U.S. 407, 430 (1984)). We
have reviewed the record and Awung’s c ontentions and conclude
that substantial evidence supports the finding below that Awung
did not meet his burden to qualify for this relief.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

conten tions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
#### In the Matter of John Gerdes et al., as Trustees of Reynolds Investing Company, Inc., Appellants, against Carroll G. Walter, as Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, et al., Respondents.

Argued February 23, 1943;

decided April 22, 1943.

*747
      *John Gerdes*and *James D. Carpenter, Jr.,*in person, and *Mary-Chase Clark*for appellants.

*David Paine, Lawrence S. Greenbaum, Theodore S. Jaffin*and *James F. Dwyer*for respondents.

Appeal dismissed, without costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughban, Finch, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ.
EXHIBIT  32.2

                            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 Annual Report of Nanoscience Technologies, Inc., (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
David Rector, Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13 (a) or
         15 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

         2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
         the Company.

/s/ David Rector
-------------------------
DAVID RECTOR
Acting Chief Financial Officer
January 17, 2006


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
The foregoing certifications are accompanying the Company's Form 10-QSB solely
pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not
being filed as part of the Form 10-QSB or as a separate disclosure document.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Lopez, Appellant.

[770 NYS2d 854]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (William Donnino, *456J.), rendered April 11, 2001, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, attempted murder in the second degree and assault in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to consecutive terms of 25 years to life, 15 years and 25 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress his videotaped statement, since his vague reference to a prior request for counsel, apparently made at some unknown time and to an unknown person, was not an unequivocal invocation of his right to counsel *(see People v Glover,*87 NY2d 838 [1995]; *People v Fridman,*71 NY2d 845 [1988]; *People v Powell,*304 AD2d 410 [2003]). Defendant’s remark did not obligate the interviewing prosecutor to make any clarifying inquiries *(see Davis v United States,*512 US 452, 459-460 [1994]).

The challenged portions of the prosecutor’s summation were generally within the broad bounds of permissible rhetorical comment and did not deprive defendant of a fair trial *(see People v D’Alessandro,*184 AD 2d 114, 118-119 [1992], *lv denied*81 NY2d 884 [1993]).

The existing record establishes that defendant received effective assistance of counsel *(see People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; *see also Strickland v Washington,*466 US 668 [1984]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

We have considered and rejected the remaining claims contained in defendant’s pro se supplemental brief. Concur— Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Ellerin and Gonzalez, JJ.
#### Rajesh VARMA; Mahima Varma, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AMERICA’S WHOLESALE LENDER, Its Successors and/or Assigns, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-56440

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 26, 2017*

Filed July 3, 2017

*565Rajesh Varma, Pro Se

Mahima Varma, Pro Se

Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Rajesh Varma and Mahima Varma appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing sua sponte their action alleging violations of the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc.,*813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the Varmas’ action alleging a TILA claim for rescission because the Varmas did not exercise their right of rescission within three years of when they consummated the loan transaction. *See*16 U.S.C. § 1636(f); *Beach v. Ocwen Fed. Bank,*623 U.S. 410, 412-13, 419, 118 S.Ct. 1408, 140 L.Ed.2d 566 (1998) (explaining that “§ 1635(f) completely extinguishes the right of rescission at the end of the 3-year period”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend because amendment would be futile. *See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,*656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that a district court can dismiss without leave to amend where amendment would be futile).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

**

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