alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WILLIAM ALBERTO MORALESCORNEJO,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 14-71158

Agency No. A044-022-378

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 24, 2016** 

Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

William Alberto Morales-Cornejo, a native and citizen of El Salvador,

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order

dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision finding him removable

and pretermitting his application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is

FILED

MAR 02 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * 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).
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Coronado v.

Holder, 759 F.3d 977, 982 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny in part and dismiss in part the

petition for review.

The agency correctly determined that Morales-Cornejo’s conviction under

Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11377(a), for possession of methamphetamine,

constitutes a controlled substance violation which renders him removable under 8

U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). See Coronado, 759 F.3d at 984-86 (holding that Cal.

Health & Safety Code § 11377(a) is divisible and subject to the modified

categorical approach). Accordingly, the agency correctly concluded that this

conviction interrupted his accrual of the continuous physical presence required for

cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1)(B) (continuous physical

presence period ends when alien commits enumerated offense). Morales-Cornejo’s

argument challenging Coronado’s treatment of Cal. Health & Safety Code

§ 11377(a) is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Torre-Jimenez, 771

F.3d 1163, 1165-67 (9th Cir. 2014).

Morales-Cornejo’s contention that he is eligible for Federal First Offender

Act (“FFOA”) treatment under Lujan-Armendariz v. INS, 222 F.3d 728 (9th Cir.

2000), overruled prospectively by Nunez-Reyes v. Holder, 646 F.3d 684 (9th Cir.

2011) (en banc), is without merit because there is no indication that his conviction

2 14-71158
has been expunged. See Chavez-Perez v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1284, 1291-92 (9th

Cir. 2004) (the FFOA exception does not apply to convicted aliens who are eligible

for, but have not yet received, expungement of the conviction).

We lack jurisdiction to review Morales-Cornejo’s unexhausted contention

that the record of conviction does not show he was necessarily convicted of

possession of methamphetamine. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th

Cir. 2010) (“We lack jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented in an alien’s

administrative proceedings before the BIA.”). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

3 14-71158
# EUR-Lex - 32003R1407 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32003R1407

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1407/2003 of 7 August 2003 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2341/2002 fixing for 2003 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required **

*
Official Journal L 201 , 08/08/2003 P. 0003 - 0004 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1407/2003

of 7 August 2003

amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2341/2002 fixing for 2003 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2341/2002 of 31 December 2002 fixing for 2003 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1091/2003(2), and in particular Article 3(4) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) The Community's fishing opportunities for capelin in zone V, XIV (Greenland waters) for 2003 are laid down provisionally in Annex IC to Regulation (EC) No 2341/2002.

(2) Under the Fourth Protocol laying down the conditions relating to fishing provided for in the Agreement on fisheries between the European Economic Community, on the one hand, and the Government of Denmark and Home Rule Government of Greenland, on the other(3), the Community receives 70 % of the Greenland share of the total allowable catch (TAC) for capelin in zones V and XIV.

(3) By letter of 17 June 2003, the Greenland authorities have informed the Commission that the Greenland share of the TAC for capelin for 2003 has been fixed at 91850 tonnes. The final fishing opportunities for capelin for the Community during 2003 should therefore be fixed at 64295 tonnes in zones V and XIV (Greenland waters).

(4) Regulation (EC) No 2341/2002 should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Annex IC to Regulation (EC) No 2341/2002 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 7 August 2003.

For the Commission

Franz Fischler

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 356, 31.12.2002, p. 12.

(2) OJ L 157, 26.6.2003, p. 1.

(3) OJ L 209, 2.8.2001, p. 2.

ANNEX

In Annex IC to Regulation (EC) No 2341/2002, the entry concerning the species Capelin in zones V and XIV (Greenland waters) is replaced by the following:

">TABLE>"
#### LIFESOURCE, Petitioner, Cross-Respondent, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, Cross-Petitioner.

Nos.: 13-1806 and 13-1162

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted July 2, 2014

Decided December 2, 2014

Ronald J. Andrykovitch, Ryan W. Colombo, Attorneys, Cohen *&*Grigsby, P.C., Pittsburgh, PA, John E. Lyncheski, Attorney, Cohen & Grigsby, P.C., Naples, FL, for Petitioner (Case No. 13-1806).

Douglas Callahan, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, Appellate Court Branch, Usha Dheenan, Linda Dreeben, Kellie Isbell, Attorneys, National Labor Relations Board, Office of the General Counsel, Washington, DC, Peter S. Ohr, National Labor Relations Board, Chicago, IL, for Respondent (Case No. 13-1806).

Douglas Callahan, Joel A. Heller, Attorneys, National Labor Relations Board, Appellate Court Branch, Usha Dheenan, Linda Dreeben, Kellie Isbell, Attorneys, National Labor Relations Board, Office of the General Counsel, Washington, DC, Peter S. Ohr, National Labor Relations Board, Chicago, IL, for Petitioner (Case No. 13-1162).

Ronald J. Andrykovitch, Ryan W. Colombo, Attorneys, Cohen & Grigsby, P.C., Pittsburgh, PA, John E. Lyncheski, Attorney, Cohen & Grigsby, P.C., Naples, FL, for Respondent (Case No. 13-1162).

Before ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge, DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge, DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

ORDER

The following are before the court:

1. MOTION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD TO VACATE AND REMAND AND FOR EXPEDITED ISSUANCE OF MANDATE IN LIGHT NLRB v. NOEL CANNING, filed on July 2, 2014, by counsel for the National Labor Relations Board.

2. RESPONDENT’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD TO VACATE AND REMAND AND FOR EXPEDITED ISSUANCE OF MANDATE IN LIGHT OF NLRB v. NOEL CANNING AND REQUEST THAT JUDGMENT BE ENTERED IN FAVOR OF LIFE-SOURCE WITH PREJUDICE, filed on July 14, 2014, by counsel for LifeSource.

3. REPLY OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD TO LIFESOURCE’S OPPOSITION TO THE BOARD’S MOTION TO VACATE AND REMAND AND LI-FESOURCE’S REQUEST THAT JUDGMENT BE ENTERED IN ITS FAVOR, filed on July 28, 2014, by counsel for the National Labor Relations Board.

*826The National Labor Relations Board’s motion to vacate and remand is GRANTED. The National Labor Relations Board’s order is VACATED and this case is REMANDED to the Board for further proceedings in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in *NLRB v. Noel Canning,*573 U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 2550, 189 L.Ed.2d 538 (2014). The mandate in this appeal shall issue forthwith.
114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6135 

AN ACT 

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located at 719 Church Street in Nashville, Tennessee, as the ‘‘Fred D. Thompson Federal Building 

and United States Courthouse’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 6135 EH

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

2 The Federal building and United States courthouse 

3 located at 719 Church Street in Nashville, Tennessee, 

4 shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Fred D. Thompson 

5 Federal Building and United States Courthouse’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal 

9 building and United States courthouse referred to in sec10 tion 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Fred D. 

11 Thompson Federal Building and United States Court12 house’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives November 29, 

2016. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6135 

AN ACT 

To designate the Federal building and United 

house’’. son Federal Building and United States Courtin Nashville, Tennessee, as the ‘‘Fred D. ThompStates courthouse located at 719 Church Street
#### MEIXIA FENG, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 14-71896

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*658Submitted November 15, 2017 *

Filed November 20, 2017

Armin Alexander Skalmowski, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioner

OIL, Leslie McKay, Esquire, Assistant Director, 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: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Meixia Feng, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. *Avagyan v. Holder,*646 F.3d 672, 674 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Feng’s motion to reopen as untimely, where it was filed almost 13 years after her final order of removal,, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4), and Feng failed to establish the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, *see Avagyan,*646 F.3d at 679 (equitable tolling is available to an alien who is prevented from timely filing a motion to reopen due to deception, fraud, or error, as long as petitioner exercises,, due diligence in discovering such circumstances). Despite the BIA’s determination that assertions, in Feng’s declaration were inherently unbelievable, both the IJ and the BIA treated as true her statements regarding diligence. Thus, we do not reach Feng’s contention that the determination was improper.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eucharia Ifeyinwa OKEKE, AKA UK, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-50308

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted November 17, 2017 * Pasadena, California

Filed November 21, 2017

L. Ashley Aull, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Vijay Shanker, Esquire, Ellen Meltzer, Special Counsel, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Fay Arfa, Esquire, Attorney, Fay Ara, A Law Corporation, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: KOZINSKI and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and GETTLEMAN,** District Judge.

*

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

**

 The Honorable Robert W. Gettleman, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

1. The district court wasn’t “put on notice” that Okeke has any difficulty under*596standing English. See United States v. Si, 333 F.3d 1041, 1044 (9th Cir. 2003). Nor does the record indicate that Okeke has difficulty understanding English. Therefore the district court didn’t err by failing to appoint an interpreter.

2. As a general rule, we don’t review ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal, and no exception to that rule applies here. See United States v. Benford, 574 F.3d 1228, 1231 (9th Cir. 2009).

3. We dismiss the sentencing portion of Okeke’s appeal because she knowingly and voluntarily waived her right to appeal her sentence. See United States v. Lococo, 514 F.3d 860, 866 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam),

AFFIRMED 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.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

        Written Statement of Executive Vice President, Finance and Chief
                Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the
               Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

     The undersigned, the Executive Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial
Officer of the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority (the "Authority"), hereby
certifies that, to his knowledge, on the date hereof:

     (a) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of the Authority for the Quarter
         Ended December 31, 2000 filed on the date hereof with the Securities
         and Exchange Commission (the "Report") fully complies with the
         requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
         of 1934; and

     (b) information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
         respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
         Authority.

                                           /s/ Jeffrey E. Hartmann
                                           -----------------------------------
                                           Jeffrey E. Hartmann
                                           Executive Vice President, Finance and
                                           Chief Financial Officer
                                           November 12, 2002

                                       41
exv4w12



 



EXHIBIT 4.12


PROMISSORY NOTE




	 	 	 
	$310,000

 	 	
October 13, 1998

Alexandria, Virginia



     FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, a Virginia corporation (the
Borrower) hereby promises to pay to the order of RESEARCH INDUSTRIES
INCORPORATED, a Virginia corporation (the Lender), at 123 North Pitt Street,
Alexandria, Virginia 22314, or such other location as the holder hereof may in
writing designate, the principal sum of THREE HUNDRED AND TEN THOUSAND AND NO/00
DOLLARS ($310,000), in lawful money of the United States of America in
immediately available funds, on January 11, 1999, without defense, offset or
counterclaim, together with interest on the unpaid principal amount hereof, at
such office, in like money and funds, from the date hereof at the rate of eight
(8) per cent per annum.


     This Note is subject to the terms and conditions of the Subordination
Agreement dated January 27, 1998 entered into by and among Research Industries
Incorporated, Crestar Bank and Halifax Corporation.


     This Note is one of two Notes referred to in the Loan Agreement between
the Borrower and the Lender dated October 8, 1998.


     The Borrower hereby waives presentment, demand, notice of dishonor,
protest and all other demands and notices in connection with the delivery,
acceptance, performance and enforcement of this Note. Lender shall be entitled
to recover any costs and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in the collection
of this Note.


     This Note may be prepaid at anytime without penalty.


     This Note shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws
of the Commonwealth of Virginia, without reference to conflict of laws
principles.


     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Borrower has caused this note to be executed by
its duly authorized President as of the day and year first above written.






	 	 
	 	BORROWER
	 
	 	HALIFAX CORPORATION

a Virginia Corporation
	 
	 	By:  /s/  HOWARD C. MILLS

	 	


	 	
Name:  Howard C. Mills

Title: President
|       (i)  | the      accompanying report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal      quarter ended April 30, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with the      requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) 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:  June      9, 2009 | By:    | /s/      Andrew J. Buckland                                                           |   |
|                               |   | Andrew      J. BucklandChief      Financial Officer(Principal      Financial Officer) |

----
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 Annual Report of 310 Holdings, Inc; (the "Company") on
      Form
      10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Nicole
      Wright ,
      Chief
      Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
      adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2001,
      that:





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





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





Dated: April
      2,
      2007




/s/Nicole WrightNicole
              Wright,Chief
              Executive Officer
#### Michael Lee HALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-2164

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 21, 2017

Decided: December 27, 2017

Michael Lee Hall, Appellant Pro Se. Meredith Anne Pinson, Bruce Steen, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Michael Lee Hall appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to grant Bank of America Corporation’s motion to dismiss Hall’s civil claims, including his discriminatory failure-to-promote claim brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 2012 *&*Supp. 2017). Limiting our review to the issues raised in Hall’s informal brief, *see*4th Cir. Rule 34(b), we discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. *See Hall v. Bank of Am. Corp.,*No. 3:16-cv-00715-RJC-DSC, 2017 WL 3971281 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 8, 2017). 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*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          17,467
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,318
<ALLOWANCES>                                       286
<INVENTORY>                                      1,793
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                22,582
<PP&E>                                           3,730
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,983
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  25,138
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,415
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        37,220
<OTHER-SE>                                    (15,541)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    25,138
<SALES>                                          5,428
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,428
<CGS>                                            2,363
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,363
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,644
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     9
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (244)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (345)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         6
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (345)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (351)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.04)
        

</TABLE>