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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

RESHAM SINGH; RANJIT SINGH

RANA; KAMAL PREET KAUR;

BALBIR KAUR,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-71652

Agency Nos. A095-413-662

 A095-413-663

 A095-413-664

 A095-413-665

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 25, 2010** 

Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges. 

Resham Singh and his family, natives and citizens of India, petition for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion

to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Our jurisdiction is governed

FILED

JUN 03 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 07-71652

by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to

reopen. Iturribarria v. 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 petitioners’ motion to

reopen as untimely where the motion was filed more than two years after the BIA’s

September 17, 2004, order dismissing petitioners’ appeal, see 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed to establish the late filing was due to

deception, fraud or error of former counsel to warrant equitable tolling, see

Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua

sponte authority to reopen proceedings. See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159

(9th Cir. 2002).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 30, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28067-28068]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-13114]



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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 15

[ET Docket No. 92-165; FCC 93-260]


Restricted Bands of Operation

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Correcting amendments.

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

SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to the final regulations 
which were published June 21, 1993 (58 FR 33774). The regulations 
relate to the expansion of the restricted bands of operation for 
international radiators.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 30, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: [[Page 28068]] 
Errol Chang, Office of Engineering and Technology, (202) 739-0714.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The final regulations that are the subject 
of this correction were amended in ET Docket 92-165, modifying 47 CFR 
Section 15.205. As published in the CFR, the final regulations contain 
errors which may prove to be misleading and are in need of correction.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 15

    Communication equipment, Radio.

    Accordingly, 47 CFR Part 15 is corrected by making the following 
correction amendments:

PART 15--RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES

    1. The authority citation for Part 15 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Secs. 4(i), 302, 303, 304, 307 and 624A of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154, 302, 303, 
304, 307 and 544A.


Sec. 15.205  [Amended]

    2. In Sec. 15.205, paragraph (a), column two of the table the first 
entry ``16.42-423'' is revised to read ``16.42-16.423''.

Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-13114 Filed 5-26-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M
##### 



EXHIBIT 32 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 Earl L Yager, as Chief Executive Officer of CHAD Therapeutics, Inc. (the
Company), and Tracy A. Kern, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, that (1) the Companys Quarterly Report of Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or Section 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
Company. Dated:
August 11, 2004
    
    /s/ Earl L YagerEarl L. YagerChief Executive OfficerOfCHAD Therapeutics, Inc.Dated:
August 11, 2004
    
    /s/Tracy A. KernTracy A. KernChief Financial OfficerOfCHAD Therapeutics, Inc.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF )

THE COUNTY OF LAGRANGE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:15-CV-57

)

LPS REAL ESTATE DATA SOLUTIONS, )

INC., n/k/a BLACK KNIGHT REAL )

ESTATE DATA SOLUTIONS, LLC, )

)

Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This case was filed in this Court on February 24, 2015, based on diversity jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). (Docket # 1.) The complaint alleges that Plaintiff is a political

subdivision organized and existing under the laws of the State of Indiana,1 and that “Defendant

LPS is a company organized under the laws of the state of California, with its corporate offices

located in the state of Florida . . ..” (Compl. ¶¶ 12.) 

Plaintiff’s jurisdictional allegations with respect to Defendant, however, are inadequate. 

As the party seeking to invoke federal diversity jurisdiction, Plaintiff bears the burden of

demonstrating that the requirement of complete diversity has been met. Chase v. Shop’n Save

Warehouse Foods, Inc., 110 F.3d 424, 427 (7th Cir. 1997). 

Plaintiff must definitively state whether Defendant is a limited liability company. For

purposes of establishing diversity jurisdiction, a limited liability company’s citizenship is

1 “It is well settled that for purposes of diversity of citizenship, political subdivisions are citizens of their

respective States.” Muscarello v. Ogle Cnty. Bd. of Comm’rs, 610 F.3d 416, 424 (7th Cir. 2010) (quoting Illinois v.

City of Milwaukee, 406 U.S. 91, 97 (1972)).
different than that of a corporation. Thomas v. Guardsmark, LLC, 487 F.3d 531, 533 (7th Cir.

2007). Corporations “are deemed to be citizens of the state in which they are incorporated and

the state in which they have their principal place of business.” N. Trust Co. v. Bunge Corp., 899

F.2d 591, 594 (7th Cir. 1990); see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). Conversely, a limited liability

company’s citizenship “for purposes of . . . diversity jurisdiction is the citizenship of its

members.” Cosgrove v. Bartolotta, 150 F.3d 729, 731 (7th Cir. 1998). 

Therefore, if Defendant is a limited liability company as its name reflects, the Court must

be advised of the citizenship of all its members to ensure that none of the members share a

common citizenship with Plaintiff. Hicklin Eng’g, L.C. v. Bartell, 439 F.3d 346, 347 (7th Cir.

2006). Moreover, citizenship must be “traced through multiple levels” for those members of 

who are a partnership or a limited liability company, as anything less can result in a dismissal or

remand for want of jurisdiction. Mut. Assignment & Indem. Co. v. Lind-Waldock & Co., LLC,

364 F.3d 858, 861 (7th Cir. 2004). 

Therefore, Plaintiff is ORDERED to file on or before April 9, 2015, an amended

complaint that properly recites Defendant’s citizenship, tracing it through all applicable layers of

ownership.

SO ORDERED.

Enter for this 26th day of March 2015.

/s Susan Collins 

Susan Collins,

United States Magistrate Judge

2
#### Sheila WEIR, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Tyrone P. CURTIS, Executive Director; Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 03-2238.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 27, 2004.

Decided May 4, 2004.

*152Sheila Weir, Appellant pro se. William Harrison Baxter, II, McGuirewoods, L.LP., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Sheila Weir appeals the magistrate judge’s order imposing $500 sanctions, enjoining her from filing any future lawsuits until the sanction is paid in full, and dismissing her civil action with prejudice for failure to prosecute. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

To the extent that Weir appeals the district court’s denial of her motion to withdraw her consent to have a magistrate judge preside over her case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) (2000), we find no error in the district court’s finding that Weir failed to establish “extraordinary circumstances” sufficient to withdraw the reference to the magistrate judge. *See*28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(4) (2000); *Dixon v. Ylst,*990 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir.1993); *Fellman v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co.,*735 F.2d 55, 58 (2d Cir.1984). We further find no merit to Weir’s claim that the magistrate judge did not have authority to impose sanctions against her. *See*28 U.S.C. § 636(e)(4) (2000).

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge. *See Weir v. Curtis,*No. CA-03-4 (E.D.Va. Oct. 2, 2003). We grant Weir’s motion to amend her informal brief. 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*
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1488 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1488

                  For the relief of Mehmet Kenan Tas.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 5, 2005

 Mr. Hinojosa introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                  For the relief of Mehmet Kenan Tas.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR MEHMET KENAN TAS.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 
201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Mehmet Kenan Tas shall be 
eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status 
to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon 
filing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under section 
204 of such Act or for adjustment of status to lawful permanent 
resident.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Mehmet Kenan Tas enters the United 
States before the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), he shall 
be considered to have entered and remained lawfully and shall, if 
otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status under section 
245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
    (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) 
and (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status is filed 
with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting of an 
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Mehmet Kenan Tas, the 
Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, 
during the current or next following fiscal year, the total number of 
immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the country of 
the alien's birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act or, if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas 
that are made available to natives of the country of the alien's birth 
under section 202(e) of such Act.
    (e) Denial of Preferential Immigration Treatment for Certain 
Relatives.--The natural parents, brothers, and sisters of Mehmet Kenan 
Tas shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be accorded any right, 
privilege, or status under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
                                 <all>
```
Motion Granted; Order filed July 23 , 2013.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 13

- 00094

- CV

____________ JAMES STEARNS , Appellant

V.
LISA MARTENS and STEARNS POOLS AND SP AS, INC. , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 268th District Cour t Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 09

- DCV

- 169484



### ORDER This is an appeal from the property division awarded in a final decree of divorce signed November 8, 2013. Appellant timely requested Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. See Tex. R . Civ. P. 296; Tex. Fam. Code § 6.711 (requiring findings and conclusions on the characterization and value of assets, liabilities, claims, and offsets)

. Appellant also filed a timely reminder of past due findings and conclusions. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 297. To date, the requested findings and conclusions have not been filed.2

On July 5, 2013, appellant filed a motion to abate the appeal , request ing that the trial court be direct ed to file findings of fact and conclusions of law. See Tex. R. App. P 44.4 (b)

. Counsel for appellee Lisa Martens does not oppose the motion, and counsel for appellee Stearns Pools and Spas, Inc. has not filed any response in opposition to the motion. See Tex. R. App. P. 10.3(a). Accordingly, we GRANT appellant’s motion and issue the following order.

We ORDER the appeal abated and direct the trial court to file findings of fact and c onclusions of law on or before August 16 , 2013. Within ten days after the trial court has filed findings of fact and conclusions of law, any party may file a request for specified additional or amended findings or conclu sions. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 298. T he trial court shall file any additional or amended findings that are appropriate within ten days after such a request is filed. The trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, and any additional and amended findings or conclusions, shall be included in a supplemental clerk’s record to be file d with this court on or before September 20 , 2013. The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and remov ed from this Court’s active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this Court’s active docket when the trial court ’ s findings of fact and conclusions of law are filed in this Court in a supplemental clerk’s record . The Court will also consider an appro priate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either party, or the Court may reinstate the appeal on its own motion. Appellant’s brief shall be due 30 days after the appeal has been reinstated.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justi ces Frost and Donovan.
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 Sabine Royalty Trust
(the Trust) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), the undersigned, not in its individual
capacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its
knowledge:  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of
    Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
    1934, as amended; and(2) The information contained in the Report fairly
    presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
    results of operations of the Trust.  BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., TRUSTEE FORSABINE ROYALTY TRUST  By:
    /s/ Ron E. Hooper Ron E. HooperSenior Vice President, Royalty Management Date: May 4, 2010 A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 has been provided to Sabine Royalty Trust and
will be retained by Sabine Royalty Trust and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restricti ons on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 CHARLES and JOANN DOUGHERTY, 2 husband and wife, 3 Plaintiffs-Appellees, 4
v. NO. 32,687 5 MARK AND JACKIE DAVIS, 6 Defendants-Appellants. 7
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CIBOLA COUNTY 8 Camille M. Olguin, District Judge 9 Rosebrough Law Firm, P.C. 10 Robert F. Rosebrough, Esq. 11 Gallup, NM 12 for Appellees 13 Lakins Law Firm, P.C. 14 Charles N. Lakins, Esq. 15 Albuquerque, NM 16 for Appellants 17MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 WECHSLER, Judge. 2 {1} Defendants appeal the district court’s judgment awarding damages to Plaintiffs. 3 We issued a calendar notice proposing to affirm the judgment. Defendants’ attorney 4 has not filed a response to that calendar no tice. However, Defendant Mark Davis did 5 e-mail a document entitled “Comments: TO JAMES J WECHSLER” to the court 6 system’s help desk. The e-mail was then forwarded to the Court of Appeals clerk’s 7 office, and a paper copy of the e-mail has beenplaced in this Court’s file. Despite the 8 unusual route this document has taken to come before the Court, we will consider its 9 contents. 10 {2} The document e-mailed by Defendant Mark Davis attacks the district court’s 11 judgment mainly by asserting that the SpecialMaster’s decision was contrary to the 12 evidence. According to the document, Plaintiffs’ witnesses lied to the Special Master, 13 and the Special Master was “unable to read a topo map.” In other words, the 14 document essentially asks this Court tooverturn the Special Master’s credibility 15 determinations and re-w eigh the evidence in favor of Defendants rather than Plaintiffs. 16 However, as we explained in the calendar notice, this Court is required to view the 172 evidence in the light most favor able to the decision below. See Robertson v. Carmel 1 Builders Real Estate , 2004-NMCA-056, ¶ 28, 135 N.M. 641, 92 P.3d 653. We may 2 not overturn credibility determinations made by the district court, since we were not 3 present to see the witnesses testify or, as in this case, to personally view the physical 4 location of the dispute. See New Mexicans for Free Enter. v. City of Santa Fe, 5 2006-NMCA-007, ¶ 71, 138 N.M. 785, 126 P.3d 1149; Evans v. Taxation & Revenue 6 Dep't, 1996-NMCA-080, ¶¶ 9, 10, 122 N.M. 216, 922 P.2d 1212. Therefore, the 7 arguments raised in the e-mailed document are not a sufficient basis for reversal of the 8 district court’s judgment. 9 {3} For the reasons discussed in this opini on and in our calendar notice, we affirm 10 the judgment entered below. 11 {4} IT IS SO ORDERED. 12

__________ ______________________ 13 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 14
WE CONCUR: 15

________________________________ 16 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 17

________________________________ 18 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 19
UPSHER-SMITH LABORATORIES, INC., petitioner, v. LOUISIANA WHOLESALE DRUG COMPANY, INC., et al.

No. 12-265.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit for further consideration in light of *FTC v. Actavis, Inc.,* ---U.S. ----, 133 S.Ct. 2223, --- L.Ed. ---- (2013).

Justice ALITO took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Edward OBERWISE, petitioner, v. Michael D. CREWS, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

No. 12-9108.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Nathaniah FREDERICKS, Elton Jones, and Antonio Montrese Marlow, petitioners, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-7141.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
mailto:AcademicChallenge@fdic.gov

https://www.ncua.gov/
EXHIBIT 23.1
  
 Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
 
 We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference by China Armco Metals, Inc. in Amendment No. 1 to the Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement on Form S-1 on Form S-3 and the registration statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-162774) of our report dated March 31, 2010 on the consolidated balance sheets of China Armco Metals, Inc and Subsidiaries as of March 31, 2010 and 2007, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity and cash flows for the years then ended appearing in China Armco Metals, Inc. Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2010.
 
 
 /s/Li & Company, PC
 Li & Company, PC
 Skilling, New Jersey
 March 31, 2010
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We have issued our report dated March 19, 2008 (whichreport expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123(R), *Share-Based Payment*, and Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) StaffPosition 150-5, *Issuer’s Accounting under FASB Statement No. 150 for Freestanding Warrants and Other Similar Instruments or Shares that are Redeemable*), accompanying the financial statements included in the Annual Report of RubiconTechnology, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statement of Rubicon Technology, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-147552, effective November 20,2007). 

/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP 

GRANT THORNTON LLP

Madison, Wisconsin 

March 19, 2008