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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

ROBERT NERSISYAN,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-71658

Agency No. A078-649-110

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. 

Robert Nersisyan, a native of the former Soviet Union and citizen of

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

denying his motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 

We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Iturribarria v.

FILED

MAR 08 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-71658

INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny in part and dismiss in part the

petition for review.

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

reopen as untimely because he did not file the motion within 90 days of the BIA’s

final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and he failed to demonstrate

material changed circumstances in Armenia to qualify for the regulatory exception

to the time limit, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538

F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir. 2008) (evidence must demonstrate prima facie

eligibility for relief in order to reopen proceedings based on changed

circumstances). 

We decline to consider the new evidence Nersisyan references in his

opening brief because our review of the BIA’s order is limited to the administrative

record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

To the extent Nersisyan seeks review of the BIA’s April 1, 2003, decision

dismissing his underlying appeal, we lack jurisdiction because this petition for

review is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); see also Singh v.

INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
No. 11-5828.

#### James Lofton, Petitioner v. Henry Steward, Warden.

565 U.S. 965, 132 S. Ct. 457,

181 L. Ed. 2d 297,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7516.

October 17, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Western Division, denied.
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 14 (Tuesday, January 22, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 4333]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01191]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2012-0738; FRL-9772-9]
RIN 2050-AG73

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; 
Revision To Increase Public Availability of the Administrative Record 
File

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Because EPA received adverse comment, we are withdrawing the 
direct final rule for National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution 
Contingency Plan; Revision to Increase Public Availability of the 
Administrative Record File, published on November 7, 2012.

DATES: Effective January 22, 2013, EPA withdraws the direct final rule 
published at 77 FR 66729 on November 7, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact 
Melissa Dreyfus at (703) 603-8792 (dreyfus.melissa@epa.gov), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20460-0002, Mail Code 5204P.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Because EPA received adverse comment, we are 
withdrawing the direct final rule for National Oil and Hazardous 
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; Revision to Increase Public 
Availability of the Administrative Record File, published on November 
7, 2012 (77 FR 66729). We stated in that direct final rule that if we 
received adverse comment by December 7, 2012, the direct final rule 
would not take effect and we would publish a timely withdrawal in the 
Federal Register. We subsequently received adverse comment on that 
direct final rule, which we plan to address in a subsequent final 
rulemaking based on the parallel proposed rule also published on 
November 7, 2012 (77 FR 66783). As stated in the direct final rule and 
the parallel proposed rule, we will not institute a second comment 
period on this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, 
Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations, 
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water 
pollution control, Water supply.

    Dated: January 15, 2013.
Mathy Stanislaus,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.

    Accordingly, EPA withdraws the amendment to 40 CFR 300.805(c), 
published in the Federal Register on November 7, 2012 (77 FR 66729), as 
of January 22, 2013.

[FR Doc. 2013-01191 Filed 1-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION IX

75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105



## MEMO RANDUM

DATE: October 7 , 2015

TO: EPA Region 9 Rulemaking File for the BAAQMD NSR SIP Submittal

FROM: Ann Lyons , EPA Region 9 , Air Division, Office of Regional Counsel

SUBJECT: October 7, 2015 C onference Phone Call regarding the EPA Proposed Limited Approval and Limited Disapproval of Regulation 2, Ru les 1 & 2

ATTENDEES

• Ann Lyons

, EPA Region 9, Office of Regional Counsel

• David Coursen, EPA Headquarters, Office of General Counsel

• Sandy Crockett, BAAQMD Counsel’s Office

SUMMARY

Dave Coursen is an expert on minor NSR source programs and implementation of federal air regulations in Class I areas.

1. 40 CFR 51.160(a) and (b)

– The BAAQMD rule need s language to prevent construction that would interfere with attainment or maintenance of NAAQS

. District’s program does not include provisions that will show that a project will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS

. EPA needs to clarify in the final FRN that we do not intend to

use “will cause or contribute to” but intended to state “will not interfere with attainment or

maintena nce of the” NAAQS

.

HQ stated you can have categorical exemptions, but this does not appear to be the case in the

District’s rule. Focus on other sources that are more important; in the end, the universe of exempted source will not interfere with attainme nt or maintenance of the NAAQS

.

2. 40 CFR 51.307

– There is no bright line

– this is case specific

. FLMs have to protect air quality related values including visibility; the FLM’s FLAG guidance drives this . H owever
, BAAQMD is seeking a bright line rule for v isibility

, but cannot do this for the PSD

increment :Page 2 of 2 o Screening criteria based on BART guidelines and distance , and

o AQRVs are qualitative

.

ATTACHMENTS

• N one
#### Dorris, Appellant, *v.*Lloyd

(No. 2).

*482Argued September 30, 1953.

Before Stern, C. J., Stearne, Jones, Bell, Chidsey, Musmanno and Arnold, JJ.

*James Lenahan*Brown, with him *Joseph V. Kasper,*for appellant.

*R. Lawrence Coughlin,*County Solicitor, with him *Donald 8. Mills,*Assistant County Solicitor, *for*appellees.

November 24, 1953:

Opinion by

Mr. Chief Justice Horace Stern,

In this case Dr. John L. Dorris, in his capacity as County Chairman of the Democratic Party of Luzerne County and by and on behalf of that Party, brought a proceeding in quo warranto to oust the defendants, two of the County Commissioners, from their office. Defendants moved to strike off the complaint. The court granted that motion and plaintiff appeals.

*483Tlie complaint sets forth a number of alleged violations by defendants of the election laws of the Commonwealth between the year 1941 and the present time, during which period defendants have served three terms as County Commissioners.

Defendants’ contention is that a proceeding such as this can be instituted only by the District Attorney of the county, the plaintiff having no interest in the matter distinct from that of the general public.

The Act of June 14, 1836, P.L. 621, section 2, provides that the writ of quo warranto may be issued “upon the suggestion of the Attorney General, or his deputy, in the respective county, or of any person or persons desiring to prosecute the same.” But the words “any person or persons desiring to prosecute the same” have uniformly been held to mean any person having an interest of his own to be affected, or a wrong to be redressed, separate and distinct from that of the Commonwealth or the community in general, and not to give to a private person the use of the writ in the case of a public right involving no individual grievance. Jn the absence of such a special interest, differing not merely in degree but in nature and kind from that of the public at large, a private individual cannot demand a judgment of ouster on a writ of quo warranto: *Commonwealth ex rel. McLaughlin v. Cluley,*56 Pa. 270; *Commonwealth ex rel. Butterfield v. McCarter,*98 Pa. 607; *Commonwealth ex rel. Cast v. Pfromm,*255 Pa. 485, 100 A. 276; *Commonwealth ex rel. Schermer v. Franek,*311 Pa. 341, 166 A. 878. And this is particularly true where, as here, such a judgment would not place the plaintiff himself in office: *Commonwealth ex rel. v. Crow,*218 Pa. 234, 67 A. 355; *Commonwealth ex rel. Schermer v. Franek,*311 Pa. 341, 345, 166 A. 878, 879.

*484If these defendants are not properly performing the duties of their office the situation is one of public concern, and there is nothing to indicate that plaintiff has any injury to redress peculiar to himself. Therefore only the Commonwealth, acting through the District Attorney of the county, could here apply for a writ of quo warranto.

The order of the court below is affirmed.

Dissenting Opinion by

Mr. Justice Musmanno:

I dissent in this case for the same reasons specified in my opinion filed in the companion case of *Dorris v. Lloyd (No. 1),*375 Pa. 474, 100 A. 2d 924.
No. 10-11148.

#### Michael Ray McMahan, Petitioner v. Texas.

565 U.S. 1075, 132 S. Ct. 804,

181 L. Ed. 2d 516,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8393.

November 28, 2011.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 565 U.S. 869, 132 S. Ct. 221, 181 L. Ed. 2d 122, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 6384.
CARDIFF MODEL TOOLKIT

COMMUNITY GUIDANCE FOR VIOLENCE PREVENTION
CARDIFF MODEL TOOLKIT

DEVELOPED BY:

CDC CONTRIBUTORS

Laura M. Mercer Kollar, PhD 

Steven A. Sumner, MD, MSc

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA CONTRIBUTORS

Sara F. Jacoby, PhD, MPH, RN 

Greg Ridgeway, PhD

2018

Division of Violence Prevention 

National Center for Injury Prevention and Control 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

Atlanta, Georgia

Mercer Kollar, L.M., Jacoby, S.F., Ridgeway, G., Sumner, S.A. Cardiff Model Toolkit: Community Guidance for Violence Prevention. Atlanta, GA: Division of 

Violence Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2017.
THE CARDIFF MODEL FOR VIOLENCE PREVENTION TOOLKIT: AN INTRODUCTION

More than half of violent crime in the United States is not reported to law enforcement, 

according to the U.S. Department of Justice. That means cities and communities lack 

a complete understanding of where violence occurs, which limits the ability to develop 

successful solutions. 

The Cardiff Violence Prevention Model provides a way for communities to gain a clearer 

picture about where violence is occurring by combining and mapping both hospital and 

police data on violence. 

But more than just an approach to map and understand violence, the Cardiff Model 

provides a straightforward framework for hospitals, law enforcement agencies, public 

health agencies, community groups, and others interested in violence prevention to 

work together and develop collaborative violence prevention strategies.

The toolkit includes a printable poster, infographic, and these guidance materials:

• What Is the Cardiff Model?

• Hospital Guidance

• Law Enforcement Guidance

• Legal, Technical, and Financial Considerations

• Building Partnerships

• External Communications and Media Relations

• Readiness Checklist

All materials are available for download at www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/

fundedprograms/cardiffmodel.

The Cardiff Model is a promising solution to prevent violence. We encourage you to use 

these materials to create a broad partnership to prevent violence in your community.

Sincerely,

James A. Mercy, PhD

Director

Division of Violence Prevention

National Center for Injury Prevention and Control
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MA Y 24, 2018

NO. 03

- 16

- 00724

- CV

Ranna & Company, LLC, Appellant

v.

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 345TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEF ORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, BO URLAND, AND SHANNON

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE SHANNON

This is an appeal from the judgment s igned by the tr i a l court on September 20, 2016. Having

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the C ourt holds that there was no reversible error

in the judgment . Therefore, the C ourt affirms the trial court’s judgment

. A ppellant shall pay all

c osts relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
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

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Entech Environmental
Technologies, Inc., a Florida corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for
the period ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Burr Northrop, as Principal
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 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.


Dated: September 14, 2006.

                         /s/ Burr Northrop
                         ---------------------------
                         Burr Northrop, Principal Financial Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIO MARTINEZ ARIAS,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

A. JOHAL, Medical Doctor at North Kern

State Prison; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 16

- 16128

D.C. No. 1:14

- cv

- 00764

- LJO

- DLB

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Lawrence J. O ’ Neill, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 14, 2016 **

Be fore: WALLACE , LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Mario Martinez Arias, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the

district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate

indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

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

# FILED

DEC 22 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 16128

§ 1291. We rev iew de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)

. Wilhelm v. Rotman , 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 ( 9th

Cir. 2012) ; Barren v. Harrington , 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) . W e

affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

The district court properly dismissed Arias’ deliberate indifference claims

against defendants Dr. Smith and Dr. Shittu because Arias failed to allege facts

sufficient to show that either Dr. Smith or Dr. Shittu knew of and disregarded an

excessive risk to Arias’ health

. See Toguchi v. Chung , 391 F.3d 1051, 1057

- 58

(9th Cir. 2004) (setting forth elements of deliberate indifference ; a prison official

acts with deliberate indifference only if the official knows of and disregards an

exces sive risk to inmate health).

However, dismissal of Arias’ deliberate indifference claim against Dr. Johal

was improper. Arias alleged in his amended complaint that Dr. Johal refused to

change the dressing or clean his wound and failed to prescribe antibiotics despite

signs of infection

. These allegations are sufficient to state a claim of deliberate

indifference against Dr. Johal

. Se e id. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment in

part, and remand for further proce edings.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED

.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 147 (Friday, July 31, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 40905]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-20522]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-5494-2]


Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General 
Information (202) 564-7167 OR (202) 564-7153.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements
Filed July 20, 1998 Through July 24, 1998
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9
EIS No. 980279, Final EIS, DOI, TT, Palau Compact Road Construction, 
Implementation, Funding, Republic of Palau, Babeldaob Island, Trust 
Territory of the Pacific Islands, Due: August 31, 1998, Contact: Thomas 
Bussanich (202) 208-6971.
EIS No. 980280, Final EIS, FHW, HI, Kealakehe Parkway Completion, Queen 
Kaahumanu Highway and Honokohau Harbor Road Intersection to near the 
Mamalahoa Highway and Old Mamalahoa Highway Intersection, North Korna 
District, Hawaii County, HI, Due: August 31, 1998, Contact: Arbaham 
Wong (808) 541-2700.
EIS No. 980281, Final EIS, USA, NM, White Sands Missile Range (WSMR), 
Implementation, Range-Wide, Las Cruces, NM, Due: August 31, 1998, 
Contact: John Foulkes (703) 695-8995.
EIS No. 980282, Final EIS, COE, WV, Bluestone Lake Dam Safety Assurance 
Project, Modifications, Withstand Probable Maximum Flood, (PMF) 
Huntington District, Hinton, Summer County, WV, Due: August 31, 1998, 
Contact: A. Benjamin Borda Jr. (304) 529-5712.
EIS No. 980283, Final EIS, AFS, AK, Crane and Rowan Mountain Timber 
Sales, Implementation, Tongass National Forest, Stikine Area, Kuiu 
Island, AK, Due: September 14, 1998, Contact: Everrett Kissinger (907) 
772-3841.
EIS No. 980284, Final SUPPLEMENT, COE, MS, Mississippi River and 
Tributaries Flood Control Plan, Construction of the remaining portion 
of the Mississippi River Mainline Levees Enlargement and Seepage 
Control Project, Flood Protection and Damage Reduction, Lower 
Mississippi River Valley, Cape Girardeau, MO to Head of Passes, LA; MO, 
IL, KY, TN, AR, MS and LA, Due: August 31, 1998, Contact: Marvin Cannon 
(601) 631-5437.
EIS No. 980285, Final EIS, USN, CA, San Diego Naval Training Center 
(NTC) Disposal and Reuse of Certain Real Properties, Implementation, 
City of San Diego, San Diego County, CA, Due: August 31, 1998, Contact: 
Robert Montana (619) 532-4816.
EIS No. 980286, Draft EIS, NOA, Atlantic Bluefish Fishery Management, 
Fishery Management Plan, Implementation, Nova Scotia to Florida, 
Northwestern Atlantic Ocean, Due: September 14, 1998, Contact: Hannah 
Goodale (978) 281-9315.

    Dated: July 28, 1998.
William D. Dickerson,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 98-20522 Filed 7-30-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U
----

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

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

| Date:           July      30, 2008 | By:    | /s/      Mitchell E. Hersh                                     |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                                                      |   | Mitchell      E. Hersh                                         |
|                                                                                      |   | President      and Chief Executive Officer                     |
|                                                                                      |   |   of      Mack-Cali Realty Corporation,              |
|                                                                                      |   |   the general      partner of Mack-Cali Realty, L.P. |
|                                                                                      |   |                                                           |
|                                                                                      |   |                                                           |
| Date:           July      30, 2008 | By:    | /s/      Barry Lefkowitz                                       |   |
|                                                                                      |   | Barry      Lefkowitz                                           |
|                                                                                      |   | Executive      Vice President and                              |
|                                                                                      |   |   Chief      Financial Officer                       |
|                                                                                      |   |   of      Mack-Cali Realty Corporation,              |
|                                                                                      |   |   the general      partner of Mack-Cali Realty, L.P. |

----
<page>
EXHIBIT 32.02

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Morgan Stanley Charter
WCM L.P. (the ?Partnership?) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the ?Report?), I, Lee Horwitz,
Chief Financial Officer of Demeter Management Corporation, the
general partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:
(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
results of operations of the Partnership.









By: /s/ Lee Horwitz

Name:	   Lee Horwitz
Title:  Chief Financial Officer of Demeter Management Corporation,
		   the general partner of the Partnership

Date:   November 13, 2007