alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 46 (Monday, March 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 10832]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5761]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. TM97-9-23-000]


Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company; Notice of Tariff Filing

March 4, 1997.
    Take notice that on February 27, 1997, Eastern Shore Natural Gas 
Company (Eastern Shore) tendered for filing to become part of its FERC 
Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, certain revised tariff sheets, 
with a proposed effective date of April 1, 1997.
    Eastern Shore states that the purpose of the filing is to track the 
cost of storage service purchased from Columbia Gas Transmission 
Corporation under their Rate Schedules FSS and SST, the costs of which 
are included in the rates payable under Eastern Shore's Rate Schedules 
CWS and CFSS, respectively.
    Eastern Shore states that copies of the filing are being mailed to 
affected customers and interested State Commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion 
to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-5761 Filed 3-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### COM. v. THOMPSON, R.

958 MDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/21/2017

CP-06-CR-0001137-2014

(Berks)

Affirmed
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1050

ROBERT E. JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, and SUSAN M. JONES, Plaintiff, versus MARVIN RUNYON, Postmaster General; UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater, District Judge. (CA-98-2-3) Submitted: March 11, 1999 Decided: March 16, 1999 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.* Although the district court’s memorandum and order is marked as “filed” on December 10, 1998, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on December 11, 1998. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the memorandum and order was physically entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 Robert E. Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Helen Campbell Altmeyer, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Robert E. Jones and Susan M. Jones appeal the district court’s order granting the Defendant summary judgment on their civil complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Jones v. Runyon , No. CA98-2-3 (N.D.W. Va. Dec. 11, 1998). * We 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
October 22, 2013

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

ALESTER D. HOGAN, Appellant

NO. 14-12-00711-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. 

Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the 

judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
No. 85-1479.

#### Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. *v.*Lindley et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice White would grant certiorari.
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

The
certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the Annual Report of Publix Super Markets, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 27, 2008 (the Report) for the purpose of
complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

I, David P. Phillips, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge, that on the date hereof:

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

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



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ David P. Phillips                
|David P. Phillips                    
|Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
|February 27, 2009
#### IN RE: LLS AMERICA, LLC, Debtor. *923Bruce P. Kriegman, solely in his capacity as court appointed Chapter 11 Trustee for LLS America LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Van Perry, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 15-35976, 15-35985

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed December 21, 2017

Daniel J. Gibbons, Shelley N. Ripley, Duane Michael Swinton, Attorneys, Matthew Alphonse Mensik, Witherspoon Kelley, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

David Van Perry, Pro Se

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P,. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

David Van Perry appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment after a bench trial directing Perry to repay proceeds he received from debtor LLS America, LLC. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for clear error the district court’s findings of fact, and de novo the district court’s conclusions of law. *One-Beacon Ins. Co. v. Haas Indus., Inc.,*634 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court properly concluded that the law of the case doctrine applied to its earlier ruling that LLS America, LLC engaged in a Ponzi scheme because Perry failed to establish any basis for departing from the doctrine. *See Thomas v. Bible,*983 F.2d 152, 155 (9th Cir. 1993) (noting the limited discretion of a court not to apply the law of the case and setting forth requisite conditions).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Perry’s post-judgment motion construed as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 because Perry failed to set forth any basis for relief. *See Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc.,*481 F.3d 724, 729 (9th Cir. 2007) (grounds for a new trial under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a)); *Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc.,*5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (grounds for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)).

We reject as unsupported by the record Perry’s contention that service of process was faulty.

We do not consider documents and facts not presented to the district court. *See United States v. Elias,*921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).

All pending requests and motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8559 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8559

    To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve and to expand 
 eligibility for dependency and indemnity compensation paid to certain 
                     survivors of certain veterans.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 9, 2020

Mrs. Hayes (for herself, Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois, Mr. Fitzpatrick, 
    Ms. Wild, Mr. Larson of Connecticut, Mr. Kilmer, and Mr. Cox of 
 California) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve and to expand 
 eligibility for dependency and indemnity compensation paid to certain 
                     survivors of certain veterans.

    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 ``Surviving Families Benefit Expansion 
Act''.

SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF REQUIREMENTS FOR DEPENDENCY AND INDEMNITY 
              COMPENSATION FOR SURVIVORS OF CERTAIN VETERANS RATED 
              TOTALLY DISABLED AT TIME OF DEATH.

    Section 1318 of title 38, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)--
                    (A) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting 
                ``(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
                Secretary''; and
                    (B) by adding at the end the following new 
                paragraph:
    ``(2) In any case in which the Secretary makes a payment under 
paragraph (1) of this subsection by reason of subsection (b)(1) of this 
section and the period of continuous rating immediately preceding death 
is less than 10 years, the amount payable under such paragraph shall be 
an amount that bears the same relationship to the amount otherwise 
payable under such paragraph as the duration of such period bears to 10 
years.''; and
            (2) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``10 or more years'' 
        and inserting ``not less than five years''.

SEC. 3. ELIGIBILITY FOR DEPENDENCY AND INDEMNITY COMPENSATION FOR 
              SURVIVING SPOUSES WHO REMARRY AFTER AGE 55.

    Section 103(d)(2)(B) of title 38, United States Code, is amended in 
the second sentence by inserting ``chapter 13 or'' after ``benefits 
under''.
                                 <all>
```
#### COM. v. RAMOS, W.

426 EDA 2015

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/27/2017

CP-51-CR-0100891-1999 (Philadelphia)

Affirmed
1

SUPERIOR COURT

OF THE

STATE OF DELAWARE

CRAIG A. KARSNITZ 1 The Circle, Suite 2

RESIDENT JUDGE GEORGETOWN, DE 19947

August 10, 2022

James A. Biggins

SBI #319264

Unit W

James T. Vaughn Correctional Center

1181 Paddock Road

Smyrna, DE 19977

Re: State of Delaware v. James A. Biggins

Def. ID No. 9609015504

Motion for Reconsideration of Postconviction Relief and 

Consolidated Motion for Discovery

Dear Mr. Biggins:

On May 11, 2022, you filed a Motion for Postconviction Relief and 

Consolidated Motion for Discovery (collectively, the “Rule 61 Motion”). This was 

not your first Rule 61 Motion. Under the Delaware Superior Court Rules of Criminal 

Procedure, second or subsequent motions for postconviction relief are not permitted 

unless, in the Rule 61 Motion, you plead with particularity new evidence creating a 

strong inference of your actual innocence or a new rule of constitutional law that 
2

applies retroactively to your case and renders your convictions invalid.1 Since you 

pled neither of these in the Rule 61 Motion, the Rule 61 Motion was procedurally 

barred and I summarily dismissed it on May 19, 2022.

2

On May 31, 2022, your Motion for Reconsideration of Postconviction Relief 

and Consolidated Motion for Discovery dated May 22, 2022 (the “Motion for 

Reconsideration”) was filed with this Court. In the Motion for Reconsideration, you 

asked me to reconsider my dismissal of the Rule 61 Motion.

There is nothing for me to reconsider. The six grounds you state in your 

Motion for Reconsideration have been presented and rejected before. 

Moreover, on August 23, 2021, I prohibited you from filing any matter with 

this Court without first obtaining written approval based on your history of filing 

numerous, meritless pleadings.3 The Delaware Supreme Court has also prohibited

you from filing any further papers challenging your convictions in this case without 

a Justice's prior approval.4 Your repetitive, meritless and frequent filings are testing 

the patience of this Court. I again prohibit you from such filings without first 

obtaining written approval.

1 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(2).

2 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(5).

3 Letter of Craig A. Karsnitz to James A. Biggins dated August 23, 2021.

4 Biggins v. State, 2011 WL 2731214, at *1 (Del. July 11, 2011).
3

For the reasons set forth above, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Very truly yours,

/s/ Craig A. Karsnitz

cc: Prothonotary
2022 EAVS Data Brief: Oklahoma EAVS Jurisdictions:

77 

 Voter Registration 

Active Reg. Voters as of Nov. 8, 20221 

2,021,787 

Reg. Forms Received2* 

614,861 

Total Confirmation Notices Sent3* 

245,970 

Voters Removed from Reg. Rolls4* 

256,672 

Source of Registration Applications5 

Motor Vehicle Dept. 54.7% 

Mail, Email, Fax 18.9% 

Online 11.5%

In Person 11.1% 

Other 3.9% 

 Voting and Turnout 

Voters Participating By Mode6 

7 Turnout 

39.7% In-Person 

Election Day 

949,235 

82.3% 

Mail 

68,697 

6.0% 

In-Person 

Early 

132,591 

11.5% 

Other 

2,680 

0.2% 

Total Voting Locations8: 1,842 

Total Poll Workers9: 6,258 

Election Technology 

Percentage of Jurisdictions Using...10 

100.0% 

Scanners 

0.0% 

Ballot 

Marking 

Devices 

0.0% 

DREs w/o 

VVPAT 

0.0% 

DREs with

VVPAT 

0.0% 

Electronic 

Poll 

Books 

0.0% 

Hand 

Counting 

 Mail Ballots 

• 92,576 mail ballots transmitted11 

• 75.6% of transmitted mail ballots returned by voters12 

• 98.2% of returned mail ballots counted13 

• 1.8% of returned mail ballots rejected14 

• Did not conduct all-mail election15 

• Did not allow drop boxes16 

• Did not allow ballot curing17 

 Election Audits18 

-- Access audit 

-- Ballot design audit 

Ballot reconciliation -- audit 

Compliance/ -- procedural audit 

-- Eligibility audit 

-- Legal audit 

Logic and accuracy ✔ testing 

Post-election ✔ tabulation audit 

-- Other 

Notes 

EAVS data and reports may be downloaded at www.eac.gov 

/research-and-data/datasets-codebooks-and-surveys. 

Responses of “Does not apply,” “Data not available,” and “Valid 

skip” are shown as zeroes or dashes. Percentages may not sum 

to 100% because of missing data or rounding. 

* Close of registration for 2020 

general election to close of 

registration for 2022 general 

election. 

1 A1b of EAVS. 

2 A3a of EAVS. 

3 A8a of EAVS. 

4 A9a of EAVS. 

5 Mail, Email, Fax is A4a/A3a. 

In Person is A4b/A3a. Online is 

A4c/A3a. Motor Vehicle Dept. is 

A4d/A3a. Other is the sum of 

A4e–A4l/A3a. May not sum to 

100% because of missing data. 

6 In-Person Election Day is F1b. 

Mail is F1d+F1g. In-Person Early 

is F1f. Other is F1c+F1e+F1h. 

7 F1a of EAVS divided by citizen 

voting age population (CVAP). 

8 D2a of EAVS. 

9 D7a of EAVS. 

10 F3a–f, F5a–F9a of EAVS; 

number of jurisdictions that 

responded “Yes” divided by

number of jurisdictions in 

state/territory. 

11 C1a of EAVS. 

12 C1b/C1a of EAVS. 

13 C8a/C1b of EAVS. 

14 C9a/C1b of EAVS. 

15 Q17 and Q17a of Policy 

Survey. 

16 Q19 of Policy Survey. 

17 Q20 of Policy Survey. 

18 Q36 of Policy Survey. See 

survey questionnaire for full 

definitions of each type of 

audit.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 47 (Tuesday, March 11, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11168-11169]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5943]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP-96-367-003]


Northwest Pipeline Corporation; Notice of Proposed Changes in 
FERC Gas Tariff

March 5, 1997.
    Take notice than on February 28, 1997, Northwest Pipeline 
Corporation (Northwest) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff the following tariff sheets, to become effective March 1, 1997:

Third Revised volume No. 1

Substitute Ninth Revised Sheet No. 5
Substitute Seventh Revised Sheet No. 5-A
Substitute Fourth Revised Sheet No. 6
Substitute Fourth Revised Sheet No. 7
Substitute Eighth Revised Sheet No. 8

[[Page 11169]]

Substitute Third Revised Sheet No. 8.1
Substitute Fourth Revised Sheet No. 200
Second Revised Sheet No. 273-A

Original volume No. 2

Substitute Twenty-Second Revised Sheet No. 2
Substitute Eighteenth Revised Sheet No. 2.1
Substitute Twenty-First Revised Sheet No. 2-A

    Northwest states that the purpose of this filing is to move into 
effect on March 1, 1997, Northwest's Docket No. RP96-367-000 rates that 
were originally filed with the Commission on August 30, 1996, as a part 
of a general rate increase. With the exception of adjustments related 
to Northwest's non-deductible business expenses and ad-valorem tax 
expenses that were required by the Commission, these rates are the same 
as those filed on August 30, 1996.
    Northwest states that a copy of this filing has been served upon 
Northwest's customers, upon all intervenors in Docket No. RP96-367 and 
upon interested state regulatory commissions.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-5943 Filed 3-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
EXHIBIT
32








CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,





AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Air Methods Corporation (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:





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





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







/s/ Aaron D. ToddAaron
      D. ToddChief
      Executive OfficerMay
      9, 2008/s/ Trent J. CarmanTrent
      J. CarmanChief
      Financial OfficerMay
      9, 2008
September 15, 2016

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

W. GARRY WALDROP DDS, INC. D/B/A LIFETIME DENTAL CARE, 

Appellant

NO. 14-15-00747-CV V.

GREGORY PHAM, JOHN MA, AND RAYMOND DAO, Appellees

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellees, Gregory 

Pham, John Ma, and Raymond Dao, signed July 1, 2015, was heard on the 

transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find error in the 

judgment. We therefore order the judgment of the court below REVERSED and 

REMAND the cause for proceedings in accordance with the court’s opinion.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

appellees, Gregory Pham, John Ma, and Raymond Dao.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
No. 11-10547.

#### Reynoso Avalos *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
### EPAX140211535655116 

## X

FEA-110801029581242 D1474P P110549 Aug 1, 2011 CDX 

## X
XXX XXX XXX XXX

XXX XXX

XXX XXX XXX XXX 

## X XXX XXX XXX XXX

XXX XXX

XXX XXX XXX XXX

XXX XXX



## X SANITIZED SUBMISSION

## X

XXX SANITIZED SUBMISSION001 EPA Letter (P-11-549) (Final Report - pig study

for HFO-1234yf) (2-11-2014) (public) EPA Letter (P-11-549) (FinalReport - pig study for HFO1 002 HLS 13-6434_HFO-1234yf 28-day pig_public HLS 13-6434_HFO-1234yf 28- day pig_Redacted.pdf 395 SANITIZED SUBMISSION

## ATTACHMENT HEADER SHEET
Attachment Number 001 Attachment Name EPA Letter (P-11-549) (Final Report - pig study for HFO-1234yf) (2-11-2014) (public)



## Associated PMN Section Number

N/A Does not contain CBI 

## Report Number EPAX140211535655116 SANITIZED SUBMISSION

## ATTACHMENT HEADER SHEET
Attachment Number 002 Attachment Name HLS 13-6434_HFO-1234yf 28-day pig_public 

## Associated PMN Section Number

N/A Does not contain CBI 

## Report Number EPAX140211535655116 SANITIZED SUBMISSION
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

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

The Honorable Barbara Lynn, U.S. District Judge for the Northern **

District of Texas, sitting by designation.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RAFAELA GONZALEZ-RIOS,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 05-76935

Agency No. A023-055-742

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted December 9, 2009 

San Francisco, California

Before: SCHROEDER and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges, and LYNN, District ** 

Judge.

Rafaela Gonzalez-Rios is a native and citizen of Mexico who petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision denying her

FILED

JAN 07 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

application for a waiver of her deportability as an aggravated felon. See INS v. St.

Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 295 (2001) (citing the former 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c)). The record

reflects she was never granted lawful permanent resident (“LPR”) status, but she

contends the government should be estopped from denying that she has LPR status

for purposes of determining eligibility for the waiver. We have jurisdiction to

review the estoppel issues. See Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 648 (9th Cir.

2007) (holding REAL ID Act restored jurisdiction over mixed questions of law and

fact). 

On the merits, however, Gonzalez-Rios’ estoppel arguments fail. She was

aware at all times that the government had never granted her applications for

adjustment of status and that she had failed to post the bond the government

requested in 1989 in order to process her application; traditional equitable estoppel

requirements are therefore not met. See Salgado-Diaz v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1158,

1165-67 (9th Cir. 2005). She also cannot establish the affirmative misconduct

required to estop the government. Delay alone is not sufficient, INS v. Miranda,

459 U.S. 14, 18 (1982); Jaa v. INS, 779 F.2d 569, 572 (9th Cir. 1986), and she

offers nothing more. 
3

The contention that her parents’ status should be imputed to her was never

presented to the BIA and is therefore unexhausted. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1);

Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2003).

The petition for review is DENIED.