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

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

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PRADEEP BHUSAL,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 12-70166

Agency No. A098-532-921

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 18, 2013** 

Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Pradeep Bhusal, a native and citizen of Nepal, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reconsider

and reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse

of discretion the denial of motions to reconsider and reopen, and review de novo

FILED

JUN 20 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 12-70166

questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). 

We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. 

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Bhusal’s motion to

reconsider where Bhusal failed to identify any error of law or fact in the BIA’s

previous order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). Contrary to Bhusal’s contentions, the

BIA did not apply an incorrect evidentiary standard. See Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft,

339 F.3d 814, 823 (9th Cir. 2003) (“in immigration proceedings [t]he sole test for

admission of evidence is whether the evidence is probative and its admission is

fundamentally fair” (internal quotations omitted)). 

The BIA properly construed Bhusal’s motion also to be a motion to reopen

in which he submitted new evidence of changed country conditions. See SocopGonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1180 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc) (explaining that

“[t]he purpose of a motion to reopen is to present new facts or evidence that would

entitle the alien to relief from deportation” while “[t]he purpose of a motion to

reconsider is not to raise new facts, but rather to demonstrate that the [immigration

judge] or the BIA erred as a matter of law or fact” (emphasis in original)). 

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Bhusal’s motion to reopen

as untimely and number-barred where the successive motion was filed more than

three years after his removal order became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and
3 12-70166

Bhusal failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances in Nepal to

qualify for the regulatory exception to the filing deadline, see 8 C.F.R. 

§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). 

It follows that Bhusal’s due process contentions fail. See Lata v. INS, 204

F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due

process claim). 

To the extent Bhusal seeks review of the agency’s underlying orders denying

relief, we lack jurisdiction because the petition for review is not timely as to those

orders. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.

2003). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
SERVED: MAY 7, 2014 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF JOSEPH MARIDON DOCKET NO. FAA-2014-0116 (Civil Penalty Action)

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2012WP190142) has been assigned to Administrative LawJudge Richard C. Goodwin. All future pleadings and other communications regarding this proceeding shall be served onthe Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, andthe otherpersons onthe attached Service List.

1e A. Yoder ChiefAdministrative Law Judge Attachment

- Service ListSERVICE LIST -BY U.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY FederafAviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000 1 Joseph Maridon, Sr., Respondent 9212 E. Frederick Ave Spokane, W A 99206-4303 ONE COPY

Jospeph R. Maridon, Jr., Respondent's Counsel Attorney at Law 6130 Elton Ave Las Vegas, NV 89107 Naomi Tsuda, Complainant's Counsel Office ofthe Regional Counsel, AWP-7 Federal AviationAdministration Western-Pacific R#gion, P.O. Box 92007 Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 TEL: 310-725-7100 FAJ{: 310-725-6816 The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin,Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue,**S~E.** (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAJ{: 202-366-7536 DocketNo. FAA-2014-0116 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 2
# Federal Student Aid (FSA)

- U.S. Department of Education Announces Latest Steps to Support Schools and Students with Better FAFSA U.S. Department of Education Announces Latest Steps to Support Schools and Students with Better FAFSA®
- Federal Student Aid Office of Enforcement Tip Submission Do you know about illegal acts or other conduct that might violate the Higher Education Act or federal rules for institutions of higher education?We want to hear from you!Email the FSA Office of Enforcement today at FSATips@ed.gov
- U.S. Department of Education to Establish an Enforcement Office Within Federal Student Aid Today, the U.S. Department of Education announced the establishment of an Office of Enforcement within Federal Student Aid, reporting directly to the chief operating officer. The Office of Enforcement will strengthen oversight of and enforcement actions against postsecondary schools that participate in the federal student loan, grant, and work-study programs.
- Statement from U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona on Federal Student Aid Leadership U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona issued the following statement regarding Federal Student Aid leadership:
# C_2022073EN.01006301.xml

| 14.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/63

---

Action brought on 23 December 2021 — Gustopharma Consumer Health v EUIPO — Helixor Heilmittel (HELIXFORTE)

(Case T-798/21)

(2022/C 73/78)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Gustopharma Consumer Health, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Wachinger and R. Drozdz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Helixor Heilmittel GmbH (Rosenfeld, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark HELIXFORTE — Application for registration No 17 234 899

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings/

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 October 2021 in Case R 1645/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
No. 11-10459.

#### Arellano Mendoza *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### IN the INTEREST OF: R.J.G.-L., JR., a Minor

736 EDA 2017

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/27/2017

CP-51-AP-0001291-2016

CP-51-DP-0002628-2014

(Philadelphia)

Affirmed
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         229,261
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  289,744
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    108,759
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               774,182
<PP&E>                                       5,491,869
<DEPRECIATION>                                 494,615
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              35,195,130
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,517,928
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        21,019
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                35,195,130
<SALES>                                      1,502,425
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,502,425
<CGS>                                          781,050
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,517,464
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             8,042,339
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             293,660
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (12,057,378)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.60)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.60)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.2


 


FIRST AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AGREEMENT


 


THIS FIRST AMENDMENT
TO PURCHASE AGREEMENT (this "Amendment") is entered into to be effective as of July 24, 2013, by and between
BEHRINGER HARVARD 7400 TUCSON WAY, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, and ARSENAULT HOLDINGS, LLC, a Colorado limited liability
company ("Purchaser").


 


Recitals:


 


A.           Seller
and Purchaser are parties to that certain Purchase Agreement effective July 1, 2013, relating to the purchase and sale of that
certain real property commonly known as 7400 Tucson, City of Centennial, Colorado as more particularly described therein (the "Contract").


 


B.           Seller
and Purchaser desire to amend the Contract as provided below.


 


Agreement:


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in
consideration of Ten and No/100 Dollars ($10.00) and the mutual agreements herein contained, and in reliance thereon, Seller and
Purchaser hereby agree as follows:


 


		1.	Defined Terms. Except as expressly defined in this Amendment, all capitalized terms
have the meaning(s) assigned in the Contract.



 


		2.	Purchase Price. Section 1.4 of the Contract is deleted in its entirety amended to
read as follows:



 


"1.4           Purchase
Price. The Purchase Price for the Property shall be FOUR MILLION SEVEN HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($4,725,000.00)
("Purchase Price")."


 


		3.	Inspection Period. Purchaser acknowledges the Inspection Period has expired and as
a result Purchaser has waived its rights to terminate the Contract expiring on the Inspection Period including, without limitation,
pursuant to Sections 2.4(a) and 3.3 of the Contract. For avoidance of any doubt, Purchaser has waived any unsatisfied Title Defects,
all of which shall be considered Permitted Exceptions.



 


		4.	Miscellaneous.



 


		(a)	Except as amended by this Amendment, the Contract remains effective in accordance with its terms.
The terms of this Amendment will control over any conflicts between it and the terms of the Contract.



 


		(b)	This Amendment may be executed in a number of identical counterparts, and a facsimile or electronic
mail transmission shall be binding on the party or parties whose signatures appear thereon. If so executed, each of such counterparts
is to be deemed an original for all purposes, and all such counterparts shall, collectively, constitute one amendment, but in making
proof of this Amendment, it shall not be necessary to produce or account for more than one such counterpart.



 


Remainder
of Page Intentionally Blank.


Signature
Page(s) Follows. 


 




    	First Amendment to Purchase Agreement	1	 



    	 



    

 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the parties have executed this First Amendment to be effective as of the date first written above.


	 	SELLER:
	 	 
	 	BEHRINGER HARVARD 7400 TUCSON WAY, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company 
	 	 
	 	By:	 
	 	Name:	 
	 	Title:	 


 


	 	PURCHASER:
	 	 
	 	ARSENAULT HOLDINGS, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company 
	 	 
	 	By:	 
	 	Name:	 
	 	Title:	 


 


First Amendment to Purchase Agreement


Signature Page
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

C ONTINUING O RDER OF A BATEMENT

Appellate case name: Tetra Technologies, Inc. v. David Alleman and Alleman Consulting, LLC

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 9

- 00 04 9

- CV

Trial court case number: 20 1 8

- 66 7 42

Trial court: 268th District Court of Harris County

On June 13, 2019, a ppellees, David Alleman and Alleman Consulting, LLC (collectively “ appellees ”), filed a m otion “ to a bate this appeal pending a trial court

determination as to whethe r this case had been rendered moot by a binding compromise settlement agreement. ” See Mantas v. Fifth Court of Appeals , 925 S.W.2d 656, 658

– 59 (Tex. 1996) (orig. proceeding) ( explaining if settlement dispute arises while underlying

action is on appeal party seeking enforcement must file separate breach of contract action and appeal should be abated); Tony’s Barbeque and Steakhouse, Inc. v. Three Points Invs.,

Inc. , 527 S.W.3d 686, 689 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, no pet.) (“ If the

sett lement dispute does not arise until the cause is on appeal, then claims for the breach or enforcement of the settlement agreement must be filed as a separate cause and the appeal abated pending resolution of the settlement

- agreement dispute. ”). We granted appellees’ motion and requested that appellees , no later than September 30, 2019, file a report advising the Court of the status of any trial court proceedings.

On September 11, 2019, appellees filed a “Status Report” advising the Court that they had filed suit against ap pellant “seeking enforcement of” the parties’ purported
post

- judgment settlement agreement. See Mantas , 925 S.W.2d at 658

– 59; Tony’s Barbeque , 527 S.W.3d at 689.

We direct appellees, no later than 60 days from the date of this order , to file

a nother report advising the Court of the status of any trial court proceedings. If appellees do not respond as directed, the case may be reinstated on the Court’s active docket and the appeal may proceed under the applicable Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

The appeal remains abated, treated as a closed case, and removed fr om this Court’s

active docket.It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

__

/s/ Julie Countiss

______  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: __ November 26, 2019

___
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8318 

To extend the availability of amounts under the Coronavirus Relief Fund. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2020 

Mr. WELCH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To extend the availability of amounts under the Coronavirus 

Relief Fund. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION. 

4 Section 601(d)(3) of the Social Security Act (42 

5 U.S.C. 801(d)(3)) is amended by striking ‘‘December 30, 

6 2020’’ and inserting ‘‘September 30, 2021’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                             178
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,178
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   5,178
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           64,411
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,292
<OTHER-SE>                                    (62,525)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     5,178
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  155,515
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (155,515)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (155,515)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (155,515)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6081

MARSHALL MILNE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION; EDWARD F. REILLY, JR., Chairman; JASPER R. CLAY, JR., Commissioner; JOHN R. SIMPSON, Commissioner; MICHAEL A. STOVER, General Counsel, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-3085-JFM) Submitted: July 22, 1999 Decided: July 27, 1999 Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marshall Milne, Appellant Pro Se. Wilma A. Lewis, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Marshall Milne appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion, seeking reconsideration of the court’s order dismissing his complaint filed under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Milne v. United States Parole Comm’n , No. CA-98-3085-JFM (D. Md. Dec. 14, 1998). We deny Milne’s motion for transfer and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 32.1
 Certification of
Chief Executive Officer & Chief Financial Officer
of VCA Antech, Inc.
 
  (i)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and(ii)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.
  /s/ Robert L. AntinRobert L. AntinChief Executive Officer/s/ Tomas W. FullerTomas W. FullerChief Financial Officer 37
Exhibit 31.4


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


RULES 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, John Gallagher, certify that:


1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the report on Form 10-K of Cue Health Inc.; and





2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.








Date:  April 29, 2022


By: /s/ John Gallagher


John Gallagher


Chief Financial Officer


(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement of
BJ Services Company on Form S-3 of our report dated November 14, 2001, appearing
in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of BJ Services Company for the year ended
September 30, 2001, and to the reference to us under the heading "Experts" in
the Prospectus, which is part of this Registration Statement.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Houston, Texas
July 23, 2002
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 67 (Thursday, April 7, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20517-20518]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07329]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Tax Forms and 
Publications Project Committee

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Tax Forms and 
Publications Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy 
Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on 
improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. Due to a 
delay in the approval process and a late start with our initial 
meetings, we are getting a late start to the TAP year. Because of this 
we will not be able to meet the 15 calendar-day notice requirement. We 
anticipate all future Federal Register notices to be timely moving 
forward. This meeting will be held via teleconference.

DATES: The meeting will be held Tuesday, April 12, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Smith at 1-888-912-1227 or (202) 
317-3087.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that a meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Tax Forms and 
Publications Project Committee will be held Tuesday, April 12, 2022, at 
1:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The public is invited to make oral comments or 
submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited time and 
structure of meeting, notification of intent to participate must be 
made with Fred Smith. For more information, please contact Fred Smith 
at 1-888-912-1227 or (202) 317-3087, or write TAP Office,

[[Page 20518]]

1111 Constitution Ave. NW, Room 1509, Washington, DC 20224 or contact 
us at the website: http://www.improveirs.org.

    Dated: April 1, 2022.
Kevin Brown,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. 2022-07329 Filed 4-6-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P