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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

EVELYN MELANI CORNEJO

RODRIGUEZ, aka Melani Rodriguez,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 10-70153

Agency No. A094-829-721

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 15, 2011** 

Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Evelyn Melani Cornejo-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of El Salvador,

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision affirming

without opinion the immigration judge’s denial of petitioner’s application for

withholding of removal. 

FILED

MAR 10 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-70153

Where the BIA summarily affirms the IJ’s decision, we review the IJ’s

decision as the final agency decision. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182,

1184 (9th Cir. 2006).

Petitioner contends that she was entitled to withholding relief based on her

membership in a social group consisting of a family who were victimized by the

gangs. We need not resolve this issue because we conclude that the IJ correctly

determined that petitioner could relocate to another part of El Salvador. See INS v.

Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 18 (2002) (“[A]n individual who can relocate safely within

his home country ordinarily cannot qualify for asylum”) (citing 8 C.F.R. §

208.13(b)(1)(i)(B)). The IJ, therefore, did not err in denying petitioner’s

application for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 44 (Thursday, March 6, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 10261]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5522]


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


DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Notice of Closed Meeting of the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) 
Executive Panel

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2), notice is hereby given that the Chief of Naval 
Operations (CNO) Executive Panel will meet 1 April 1997 from 10:00 to 
11:00 at the office of the Chief of Naval Operations, 2000 Navy 
Pentagon, Washington, DC 20350-2000. This session will be closed to the 
public.
    The purpose of this meeting is to conduct the mid-term briefing of 
the Naval Warfare Innovations Task Force to the Chief of Naval 
Operations. These matters constitute classified information that is 
specifically authorized by Executive order to be kept secret in the 
interest of national defense and are, in fact, properly classified 
pursuant to such Executive order. Accordingly, the Secretary of the 
Navy has determined in writing that the public interest requires that 
all sessions of the meeting be closed to the public because they will 
be concerned with matters listed in section 552b(c)(1) of title 5, 
United States Code.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONCERNING THIS MEETING CONTACT: Janice Graham, 
Assistant for CNO Executive Panel Management, 4401 Ford Avenue, Suite 
601, Alexandria, Virginia 22302-0268, telephone number (703) 681-6205.

    Dated: February 20, 1997.
D.E. Koenig, Jr.
LCDR, JAGC, USN, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-5522 Filed 3-5-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 46 (Monday, March 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 10829]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5872]


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


DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program; 
Scientific Advisory Board Meeting

action: Modification of notice published on February 14, 1997 (62 FR 
6954).

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

    In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (P.L. 92-463), announcement is made of the following 
Committee meeting.

date of meeting: April 22, 1997 from 0830 to approximately 1700 and 
April 23, 1997 from 0800 to approximately 1600.

place: Crown Plaza Hotel, 15 West Sixth Street, Cincinnati, OH.
    Matters to be Considered: Research and Development proposals and 
continuing projects requesting Strategic Environmental Research and 
Development Program funds in excess of $1M will be reviewed.
    This meeting is open to the public. Any interested person may 
attend, appear before, or file statements with the Scientific Advisory 
Board at the time and in the manner permitted by the Board.

for further information contact: Ms. Kimberly Kay, 8000 Westpark Drive, 
Suite 400, McLean, VA 22102, or telephone 703 506-1400 extension 552.

    Dated: March 5, 1997.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 97-5872 Filed 3-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
No. 11-10779.

#### McCoy *v.*Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# C_2022198EN.01002002.xml

| 16.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 198/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 198/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 7 January 2022 — T. S.A. v Przewodniczący Krajowej Rady Radiofonii i Telewizji

(Case C-22/22)

(2022/C 198/30)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: T. S.A.

Respondent: Przewodniczący Krajowej Rady Radiofonii i Telewizji

Question referred

Must Article 20(2) of Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive), (1) in conjunction with Article 4(1) thereof, and Articles 11 and 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as precluding national legislation which prohibits only television broadcasters from placing advertisements in their children’s programmes, but places no such prohibition on the broadcasters of on-demand audiovisual media services?

---

(1)  OJ 2010 L 95, p. 1.

---
# C_2023024EN.01004102.xml

| 23.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/41

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 11 November 2022 — Belaruskali v Council

(Case T-528/22 R)

(Interim relief - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency)

(2023/C 24/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Belaruskali AAT (Soligorsk, Belarus) (represented by: V. Ostrovskis, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J. Rurarz, B. Driessen and A. Boggio-Tomasaz, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, the applicant seeks suspension of the operation of Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2022/881 of 3 June 2022 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 153, p. 77), in so far as that decision concerns the applicant, and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/876 of 3 June 2022 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 153, p. 1), in so far as that regulation concerns the applicant.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
## United States Court of Appeals **For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________
No. 19

- 1959

___________________________

Leonard N. Anderson

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.
Ed Smith, in his individual capacity and his official capacity for his conduct under color of law, in the course and scope of his employment, as a City of St. Paul, Department of Safety Inspections Employee; City of St. Paul, a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota

Defendants - Appellees

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota

____________

Submitted: June 18, 2020 Filed: July 29, 2020 [Unpublished]

____________ Before KELLY, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.

____________

P ER CURIAM

.
Leonard Anderson and the City of St. Paul have had a long

- running dispute over building

- code violations on his property. He eventuall y sued the City and one-2- of its inspectors in federal court

. His amended complaint contained two sets of
claims : seven total under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and two more under state law

.

The district court 1 dismissed the federal claims with prejudice

, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)

, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state

law claims

, s ee 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Reviewing th e di smissal de novo and having
caref ully reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, we agree with the district court that Anderson’s amended complaint fails to state a federal claim. See Kelly v. City of Omaha , 813 F.3d 1070, 1075 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard of review). We accordingly affirm the judgment. 2 See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

1 The Honorable Eric C. Tostrud, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

2 We note that the district court’s order states that “Anderson’s state

- law claims” are dismissed without prejudice, but the judgment itself omits one: a trespass claim (Claim V)

. If this is a clerical error, the district court can correct it. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a).
No. 11-10732.

#### Bridgmon *v.*Ohio.

Ct. App. Ohio, Allen County. Certiorari denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 9053 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 9053

 To amend title 40, United States Code, to prevent Members of Congress 
and their employees from carrying firearms in the Capitol building, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 28, 2020

 Mr. Huffman (for himself, Ms. Speier, Mr. Carson of Indiana, and Ms. 
   Norton) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 40, United States Code, to prevent Members of Congress 
and their employees from carrying firearms in the Capitol building, 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 ``No Congressional Gun Loophole Act''.

SEC. 2. CAPITOL GROUNDS AND BUILDINGS SECURITY.

    (a) In General.--Section 5104(e)(1) of title 40, United States 
Code, is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (A), by redesignating clauses (i), 
        (ii), and (iii) as subclauses (I), (II), and (III), 
        respectively, and moving the margins 2 ems to the right;
            (2) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses 
        (i) and (ii), respectively, and moving the margins 2 ems to the 
        right;
            (3) by striking ``An individual'' and inserting the 
        following:
                    ``(A) In general.--An individual''; and
            (4) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(B) Exception.--Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), 
                the Capitol Police Board may not authorize or permit a 
                Member of Congress or an employee of such Member of 
                Congress to carry on or have readily accessible to such 
                Member or employee a firearm, except a Member or 
                employee may store a firearm in a car owned by such 
                Member or employee that is parked in a garage in the 
                Capitol complex if the Member or employee is in 
                compliance with the firearms laws of the District of 
                Columbia for the lawful possession of such firearm and 
                such firearm is locked with a gun lock while on the 
                Capitol complex.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect on the date that is 15 days after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
No. 11-10423.

#### Fleming *v.*Oklahoma.

Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 51 (Monday, March 17, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12603-12604]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6544]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[I.D. 030597E]


South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting.

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


[[Page 12604]]


ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will 
hold a meeting of its Executive Committee.

DATES: The meeting will be held from March 24-25, 1997. See 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific dates and times.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at NMFS Southeast Regional Office, 
9721 Executive Drive North, St. Petersburg, FL; telephone: (813) 570-
5301.
    Council address: South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, One 
Southpark Circle, Suite 306, Charleston, SC 29407-4699.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Buchanan, Public Information 
Officer; telephone: (803) 571-4366; fax: (803) 769-4520; email: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ccbfb9bfada293aeb9afa4ada2ada28cbfadaaa1afe2a2a1aabfe2aba3ba"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0b787e786a6554697e68636a656a654b786a6d66682565666d78256c647d">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Meeting Dates

March 24, 1997, 1:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    The Executive Committee will meet to hear the status of the NMFS 
Sustainable Fisheries Act General Implementation Plan, develop an 
implementation schedule for Sustainable Fisheries Act Provisions and 
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Amendments, 
and discuss how the Council and NMFS can work together to improve data 
collection.

March 25, 1997, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    The Executive Committee will hear a presentation on a Department of 
the Navy request to the Council, establish guidelines for holding 
informal meetings with fishermen, review and modify the Council 
Statement of Organizational Practices and Procedures, discuss the 
function of Council staff, discuss the status of the calendar year 1997 
budget and the calendar year 1999 budget request, discuss planning for 
future meetings, and address other business.

Special Accommodations

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with 
disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other 
auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see ADDRESSES) 
by March 17, 1997.

    Dated: March 7, 1997.
Bruce Morehead,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 97-6544 Filed 3-14-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F


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

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 276 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 276

Expressing the sense of the Congress that United States foreign policy 
  with respect to the Middle East peace process should not include an 
  attempt to require Israel to make concessions which Israel does not 
 believe to be in its self-interest, including concessions which would 
                   jeopardize the security of Israel.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 13, 1998

  Mr. Saxton submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
          referred to the Committee on International Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of the Congress that United States foreign policy 
  with respect to the Middle East peace process should not include an 
  attempt to require Israel to make concessions which Israel does not 
 believe to be in its self-interest, including concessions which would 
                   jeopardize the security of Israel.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that--
            (1) United States foreign policy with respect to the Middle 
        East peace process should not include an attempt to require 
        Israel to make concessions which Israel does not believe to be 
        in its self-interest, including concessions which would 
        jeopardize the security of Israel; and
            (2) the role of the United States in such peace process 
        should be that of a facilitator in an attempt to bring the 
        parties to the peace process to a mutual agreement as opposed 
        to declaring the terms of the agreement on a unilateral basis.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2023024EN.01002002.xml

| 23.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/20

---

Appeal brought on 31 August 2022 by Munich, SL against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 22 June 2022 in Case T-502/20, Munich v EUIPO — Tone Watch (MUNICH10A.T.M.)

(Case C-577/22 P)

(2023/C 24/28)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Munich, SL (represented by: J. Güell Serra, M. del Mar Guix Vilanova, abogados)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Tone Watch, SL

By order of 29 November 2022, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) decided that the appeal should not be allowed to proceed and ordered Munich SL to bear its own costs.

---
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8722 

To authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to make grants for repair 

and remodeling of community centers, clinics, and hospitals that serve 

veterans. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 30, 2020 

Ms. WATERS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to make 

grants for repair and remodeling of community centers, 

clinics, and hospitals that serve veterans. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS GRANTS 

4 FOR COMMUNITY CENTERS, CLINICS, AND 

5 HOSPITALS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Veterans Affairs 

7 may make grants to community centers, clinics, and hos8 pitals that serve veterans for purposes of making struc9 tural repairs and remodeling buildings. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8722 IH

1 (b) ELIGIBILITY.—To be eligible for a grant under 

2 this section, a community center, clinic, or hospital shall 

3 submit to the Secretary an application containing such in4 formation and assurances as the Secretary may require. 

5 (c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is 

6 authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000 to carry out 

7 this section. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
#### Raymond BALDWIN, Private Attorney General, PAG; Class, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Barbie DOE, (Last name unknown), Clackamas County Deputy Clerk; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-35382

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*596Submitted February 13, 2018 *

Filed February 22, 2018

Raymond Baldwin, Pro Se

Scott Charles Ciecko, Shawn A. Lille-gren, Stephen L. Madkour, County Counsel, Clackamas County Counsel, Oregon City, OR, for Defendants-Appellees Barbie Doe, Janice Doe, John Doe, Sherry Hall

Sharia Mayfield, Assistant Attorney General, Oregon Department of Justice, Salem, OR, for Defendants-Appellees Jeanne Atkins, Kate Brown

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

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Raymond Baldwin appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

In his opening brief, Baldwin fails to address the district court’s grounds for dismissal and has therefore waived his .challenge to the district court’s order. *See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington,*350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[W]e will not consider any claims that were not actually argued in appellant’s opening brief.”); *Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle,*7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1992) (issues not supported by argument in pro se appellant’s opening brief are waived); *see also Greenwood v. FAA,*28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We will not manufacture arguments for an appellant, and a bare assertion does not preserve a claim.... ”).

We reject as without merit Baldwin’s contention that the district court erred by failing to allow oral argument.

We do not consider matters raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

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