alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Oscar AVILA-RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-73140

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2017 *

Filed June 1, 2017

J. Oscar Shaw, Esquire, Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioner

Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Raya Jarawan, Esquire, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Oscar Avila-Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) or*890der dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings and review de novo questions of law. *Hernandez-Mandlla v. Holder,*633 F.3d 1182, 1184 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Avila-Ramirez is ineligible for cancellation of removal for failure to demonstrate the requisite continuous physical presence, where he conceded that he remained outside the United States for a period of more than 90 days during the relevant period. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A), (d)(2) (a departure in excess of 90 days breaks continuous physical presence). Avila-Ramirez cites no authority that ineffective assistance of counsel provides an exception to the continuous physical presence requirement. *Cf. Hernandez-Mancilla,*633 F.3d at 1182 (finding no ineffective assistance of counsel due process violation, where the actions of counsel occurred outside the context of removal proceedings).

Because Avila-Ramirez failed to establish statutory eligibility for cancellation of removal, the IJ did not violate due process in pretermitting his application and declining to hold a merits hearing. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(d) (alien has the burden of proof in establishing eligibility for relief from removal); *Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (to prevail on a due process challenge, an alien must show error and prejudice).

Avila-Ramirez’s contention regarding the applicability of 8 U.S.C. § 1427(b) is unavailing, where that statute addresses residency requirements for naturalization.

We do not address Avila-Ramirez’s contentions regarding ineffective assistance of counsel, where the BIA made its determination even assuming he could establish an ineffective assistance claim. *See Najmabadi v. Holder,*597 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 2010) (court’s review is limited to the grounds actually relied upon by the BIA).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 1⁄8 disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precédent 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

The undersigned, Evan Williams, Chief Executive Officer of Border Management,
Inc., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Border Management, Inc. for the
year ended December 31, 2007 (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 Border
Management, Inc.

Dated: March 27, 2008

/s/ Evan Williams
------------------
Evan Williams
Chief Executive Officer,
Border Management, Inc.

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 required by Section 906, has been provided to Border Management,
Inc. and will be retained by Border Management, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antwan Ramal THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-15443 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(May 5, 2017)

Jillian M. Jewell, Cherie Krigsman, Arthur Lee Bentley, III, Anita M. Cream, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, Embry Jerode Kidd, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Orlando, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Rosemary Cakmis, Donna Lee Elm, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Orlando, FL, Antwan Ramal Thomas, RRM Orlando, Community Corrections Office, Wild-wood, FL, for Defendant-Appellant

Before HULL, WILSON and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Meghan Ann Collins, appointed counsel for Antwan Thomas in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Thomas’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<LEGEND> THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
         EXTRACTED FROM THE EAGLES NEST MINING COMPANY FINANCIAL
         STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS
         QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
         STATEMENTS.
<MULTIPLIER>  1

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                            OCT-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                             SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                             0
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      0
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   0
<PP&E>                                             0
<DEPRECIATION>                                     0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              0
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                       8,970
<OTHER-SE>                                   (8,970)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       0
<SALES>                                            0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   0
<CGS>                                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  5,700
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (5,700)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (5,700)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (5,700)
<EPS-BASIC>                                 (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (0.00)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 35.1

                                                          [LOGO] IndymacBank(SM)


                       REG AB 1123 Statement of Compliance

I am an authorized officer for IndyMac Bank, F.S.B, the servicer for the
transaction listed below and I certify:

a)    A review of IndyMac Bank's activities during the reporting period and of
      its performance under the applicable servicing agreement has been made
      under my supervision.

b)    To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, except as set forth
      below IndyMac Bank has fulfilled all of its obligations under the
      agreement in all material respects throughout the reporting period.

c)    None


                                By: /s/ Robert M. Abramian
                                    ----------------------
                                    Robert M. Abramian
                                    First Vice President
                                    Home Loan Servicing
                                    Investor Reporting
                                    Indymac Bank


                                By: /s/ Barbara Perez
                                    ----------------------
                                    Barbara Perez
                                    Senior Vice President
                                    Indymac Bank



Prepared for:   Deutsche Bank

Date:           February 28, 2007

Ref:            6009 - INDX 2006-AR14 (LEHMAN)



                                                             www.indymacbank.com


             460 Sierra Madre Villa Ave., Pasadena, CA 91107   Tel: 626.535.5555
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



The undersigned, Eugene Seymour, MD, Chief
Executive and Financial Officer of NanoViricides, Inc., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(1) | the annual report on Form 10-K/A of NanoViricides, Inc. for the period ended June 30, 2011 (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 NanoViricides, Inc.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





|Date: June 14, 2012 | /s/ Eugene Seymour, MD                                                           
|------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                    | Name: Eugene Seymour, MD                                                         
|                    | Title: Chief Executive Officer and
        Interim Financial Officer and Director
|                    | (principal executive and accounting officer)                                     







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 required by Section 906, has been provided to NanoViricides, Inc.
and will be retained by NanoViricides, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### IN RE: Jamal Kwame HOSENDOVE, Petitioner.

No. 17-1072

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 30, 2017

Decided: April 4, 2017

Jamal Kwame Hosendove, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jamal Kwame Hosendove petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed in ruling on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. We find the present record does not reveal undue delay in the district court. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and deny the mandamus petition. 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.

*PETITION DENIED*
1Pursuant 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.

-1-

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 17, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________________

No. 03 - 60195

SUMMARY CALENDAR

_________________________

ANDREW JAMES,

Petitioner,

 v.

JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

______________________________________________________________________________

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A78-553-395

______________________________________________________________________________

Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, DAVIS, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

In this appeal we review the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision denying Andrew

James’ motion to reopen his removal proceedings. When James failed to attend his removal

hearing, the Immigration Judge issued an in absentia removal order. James claims that his absence

was due to a viral infection, and that the illness constitutes an exceptional circumstance justifying

rescission of the removal order and reopening of his proceedings.
-2-

The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the Immigration Judge’s decision without an

opinion, so we review the Immigration Judge’s decision. See Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302

(5th Cir. 1997). We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. De Morales

v. INS, 116 F.3d 145, 147 (5th Cir. 1997).

An order of removal will be rescinded only if the alien demonstrates that his failure to

appear was due to exceptional circumstances beyond his control. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229a(b)(5)©) and

1229a(e)(1).

James has failed to establish that he is entitled to rescission of the Immigration Judge’s

order based upon exceptional circumstances because he delayed almost six weeks in contacting

the court regarding his absence due to illness. See De Morales, 116 F.3d at 149. The petition for

review is denied.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 1, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11421-11422]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04250]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 1971-134]


Idaho Power Company; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental 
Assessment

    On October 8, 2021, Idaho Power Company filed an application to 
amend the license for the Hells Canyon Hydroelectric Project No. 1971 
(FERC No. 1971). The Hells Canyon Project is located on the Snake River 
in Adams and Washington counties, Idaho and in Wallowa, Malheur, and 
Baker counties, Oregon. The project occupies federal lands administered 
by the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (Payette 
and Wallowa Whitman National Forests and Hells Canyon National 
Recreational Area).
    In accordance with the Commission's regulations, on November 4, 
2021, Commission staff issued a notice that the application was 
accepted for filing and soliticed comments, motions to intervene and 
protests. Based on the information in the record, including comments 
filed on the notice, staff does not anticipate that amending the 
project would constitute a major federal action significantly affecting 
the quality of the human environment. Therefore, staff intends to 
prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) on the application to amend 
the Hells Canyon Project.
    The EA will be issued and circulated for review by all interested 
parties.
    Any questions regarding this notice may be directed to Jennifer 
Polardino at (202) 502-6437 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#402a252e2e292625326e302f2c213224292e2f00262532236e272f36"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="650f000b0b0c0300174b150a090417010c0b0a25030017064b020a13">[email protected]</span></a>.


[[Page 11422]]


    Dated: February 23, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-04250 Filed 2-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
October 23,2012 

Mr. Paul Campanella 

Document Control Office (DCO) (7 407M) 

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) 

Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

ATTN: TSCA Section 4 

40 CFR 799.5089; 

' _. 

Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0112 

LANXESS Corporation Study Plan for CAS# 98-09-9 

Dear Mr. Campanella: 

As we have previously discussed, LANXESS Corporation is 

requesting an extension for the test completion of several studies on 

benzenesulphonyl chloride (CAS# 98-09-9) based on our difficulties in 

scheduling lab space and scheduling the testing. 

We request the following extensions: 

For both the Toxicity to Daphnia Magna and Algal Growth 

Inhibition we request an extension to March 31, 2013. 

For the Combined Repeat Dose Toxicity with 

Reproduction/Developmental T ox Screening we request an 

extension to July 31, 2013. 

The Reverse Mutation Assay (Ames test) and In vitro Chromosome 

Aberration test will be submitted by December 21, 2012. 

Should you have any questions, please contact me. 

Sincerely, 

LANXESS 

Energizing Chemistry 

Deborah Vercek 

Regulatory Affairs 

111 Park West Drive 

Pittsburgh, PA 15272-1112 

Phone 412-809-3709 

Fax: 412-809-1056 

Deborah .V ercek@ lanxess.com 

www.US.LANXESS.com 

1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 

4 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 

Deborah A. Vercek 

Senior Regulatory Affairs Specialist 

'"'ONTAiNS NO CBI 
UPS Internet Shipping: Shipment Label 

UPS Internet Shipping: View/Print Label 

1. Ensure there are no other shipping or tracking labels attached to your package. Select the 

Print button on the print dialog box that appears. Note: If your browser does not support this function 

select Print from the File menu to print the label. 

2. Fold the printed sheet containing the label at the line so that the entire shipping label is visible. 

Place the label on a single side of the package and cover it completely with clear plastic 

shipping tape. Do not cover any seams or closures on the package with the label. Place the 

label in a UPS Shipping Pouch. If you do not have a pouch, affix the folded label using clear plastic 

shipping tape over the entire label. 

3. GETTING YOUR SHIPMENT TO UPS 

til 

~ 0 

0 

UPS locations include the UPS Store®, UPS drop boxes, UPS customer centers, authorized 

retail outlets and UPS drivers. 

Find your closest UPS location at: www.ups.com/dropoff 

Take your package to any location of The UPS Store®, UPS Drop Box, UPS Customer Center, UPS 

Alliances (Office Depot® or Staples®) or Authorized Shipping Outlet near you. Items sent via UPS 

Return Services(SM) (including via Ground) are also accepted at Drop Boxes. To find the location 

nearest you, please visit the 'Find Locations' Quick link at ups.com. 

Customers with a Daily Pickup 

Your driver will pickup your shipment(s) as usual. 

FOLD HERE 

c.. 

0:: 

0 

z 

j 

@ 

... 

0 

~ 0 

~ 

g 

Page 1 of 1 

h!fPs :/ /www. ups.corn!uis/create? ActionOriginPair=default_Print WindowPage&key=la... 10/23/2012
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6777 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6777

  To prohibit covered entities from requiring consumers to solely use 
          digital monthly statements, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 13, 2023

  Mr. Turner introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To prohibit covered entities from requiring consumers to solely use 
          digital monthly statements, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Protecting Against Paperless and 
Electronic Requirements Act'' or the ``PAPER Act''.

SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT.

    (a) In General.--Each covered entity shall offer each consumer of 
such entity the option of receiving paper copies of their monthly 
statements.
    (b) Prohibition.--A covered entity may not condition the use of any 
services offered by such entity on the sole use of digital monthly 
statements by a consumer.
    (c) Definitions.--
            (1) Depository institution.--The term ``depository 
        institution'' has the meaning given the term in section 3 of 
        the Federal Deposit Act.
            (2) Credit union.--The term ``credit union'' has the 
        meaning given the term in section 101 of the Federal Credit 
        Union Act.
            (3) Covered entity.--The term ``covered entity'' means a 
        depository institution or a credit union.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           3,738
<SECURITIES>                                     3,545
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,690
<ALLOWANCES>                                       425
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                16,487
<PP&E>                                           6,749
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,226
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  23,067
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,759
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             7
<OTHER-SE>                                      15,102
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    23,067
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,290
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,670
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,852
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 168<F1>
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,064)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        18
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,082)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.31)
<FN>
<F1>Interest Income
</FN>


</TABLE>