alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 16-17710

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

Agency No. A097-828-139

ESPERANZA SILVA-SOLIS, 

 Petitioner,

 versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

 Respondent.

________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

________________________

(August 2, 2018)

Before MARCUS, ROSENBAUM and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 16-17710 Date Filed: 08/02/2018 Page: 1 of 3 
2

Esperanza Silva-Solis, proceeding pro se, petitions for review of the Board 

of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial 

of her motion to reopen her removal proceedings pursuant to its sua sponte

authority. The Government filed a motion to dismiss Silva-Solis’s petition for lack 

of jurisdiction, and we previously ordered the Government’s motion be carried 

with the case. 

Both the BIA and the IJ have the authority to reopen removal proceedings or 

reconsider earlier decisions pursuant to their sua sponte authority at any time. 

8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a); Butka v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 827 F.3d 1278, 1283 (11th Cir. 

2016), cert. denied sub nom. Butka v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 299 (2017). We have 

held, however, that we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of a motion to 

reopen based on its sua sponte authority because 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) provides no 

meaningful standard against which to judge the BIA’s exercise of its discretion. 

Lenis v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 525 F.3d 1291, 1292-94 (11th Cir. 2008).

We lack jurisdiction to review the denial of Silva-Solis’s motion to reopen 

under the BIA’s sua sponte authority. See Lenis, 525 F.3d at 1293. Although we 

have potentially reserved jurisdiction to review such decisions where constitutional 

issues are implicated, no such claims are present in this case. See id. at 1294 n.7; 

Butka, 827 F.3d at 1284. Silva-Solis’s claim, that the BIA “abused its discretion” 

by violating her due process rights when it failed to consider her evidence of 

Case: 16-17710 Date Filed: 08/02/2018 Page: 2 of 3 
3

changed law, is an abuse of discretion argument that is not “colorable” as a 

constitutional issue. See Arias v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 482 F.3d 1281, 1283-84 (11th 

Cir. 2007) (holding, in the context of constitutional challenges to final orders of 

removal that would otherwise be unreviewable by us, that such constitutional 

claims must be “colorable” and not simply abuse of discretion arguments disguised 

in constitutional language). Silva-Solis’s argument regards the BIA’s failure to 

consider an alleged change in law, which this Court has held it lacks jurisdiction to 

consider. See Butka, 827 F.3d at 1285-86; Lenis, 525 F.3d at 1292, 1294.

Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion and dismiss Silva-Solis’s petition 

for lack of jurisdiction. 

PETITION DISMISSED.

Case: 16-17710 Date Filed: 08/02/2018 Page: 3 of 3
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-3 No. 333-105560 and Form S-3 No. 333-114522) andrelated Prospectus of Hewitt Associates, Inc. for the registration of shares of its Class A Common Stock, the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-91274) pertaining to the Global Stock and Incentive Compensation Plan and Registration Statement(Form S-3 No. 333-119576) and related Prospectus for the registration of $110,000,000 of 2.50% of Convertible Senior Notes due October 1, 2010 of our report dated October 27, 2004 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of HewittAssociates, Inc. and subsidiaries, included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2004. 

 

/S/    ERNST & YOUNG LLP 

 

Chicago, Illinois 

November 18, 2004
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 10

- 00138

- CV

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY , Appellant

v.

MEGHAN K. WELLS , Appellee

From the 21st District Court Burleson County, Texas Trial Court No. 25,844

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The parties have file d a “joint motion for entry of an agreed order” that is signed

by counsel for each party. It states that they agree that we should reverse the trial

court’s order being appealed, should affirm the underlying administrative decision, and

should order that each party bear their own costs as incurred. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 42.1(a)(2)(A).

Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s January 8, 2010 order and render

judgment affirming the October 13, 2009 administrative decision that suspendsTexas Department of Public Safety v. Wells Page 2

Appellee Meghan K. Wel ls’s license for 90 days. It is further ordered that each party

pay costs of this appeal as they have been incurred.

REX D. DAVIS Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Reyna, and Justice Davis Motion granted; judgment reversed and rendered Opin ion delivered and filed October 27 , 2010 [CV06]
#### David RICHARDSON, Appellant v. Hilda L. SOLIS, Secretary of U.S. Department of Labor, Appellee.

No. 11-5013.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Dec. 16, 2011.

David Richardson, Camp Springs, MD, pro se.

BEFORE: SENTELLE, Chief Judge; and GARLAND and BROWN, Circuit Judges.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by the appellant. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed December 22, 2010, be affirmed. The district court correctly determined appellant’s claims are barred by res judicata. *See Allen v. McCurry,*449 U.S. 90, 94, 101 S.Ct. 411, 66 L.Ed.2d 308 (1980) (res judicata precludes relitigating claims that were or could have been raised in a previous action).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

      ( print page 37166)    
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Eye Institute Special Emphasis Panel; NEI Mentored Clinical Scientist Research Career Development Applications (K08/K23).                    

*Date:*                         July 29, 2021.                    

*Time:*                         10:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, 6700 B Rockledge Drive, Suite 3400, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Ashley Fortress, Ph.D., Designated Federal Official, Division of Extramural Activities, National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, 6700 B Rockledge Drive, Suite 3400, Bethesda, MD 20817, (301) 451-2020,                         *ashley.fortress@nih.gov.*

This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.867, Vision Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: July 8, 2021. 

Melanie J. Pantoja,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2021-14920 Filed 7-13-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
# C_2020087EN.01000201.xml

| 16.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 87/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 87/2

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Potenza (Italy) lodged on 26 July 2019 — OM v Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca and Others

(Case C-569/19)

(2020/C 87/02)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Potenza

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: OM

Defendants: Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, and Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

By order of 7 November 2019, the Court (Ninth Chamber) declared the request for a preliminary ruling lodged by the Tribunale di Potenza manifestly inadmissible.

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Tonita Sharmaine SYKES, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 08-7658.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 13, 2009.

Decided: Jan. 16, 2009.

Toñita Sharmaine Sykes, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Calvin Moore, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Toñita Sharmaine Sykes seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U-.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029,154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Sykes has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 868 

To restore the longstanding partnership between the States and the Federal 

Government in managing the Medicaid program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 3, 2011 

Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. BURR, Mr. 

COBURN, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. JOHANNS, and Mr. KYL) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To restore the longstanding partnership between the States 

and the Federal Government in managing the Medicaid 

program. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘State Flexibility Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF MEDICAID AND CHIP MAINTENANCE OF 

6 EFFORT REQUIREMENTS UNDER ARRA AND 

7 PPACA. 

8 (a) REPEAL OF ARRA MEDICAID MOE.—Subsection 

9 (f) of section 5001 of the American Recovery and ReinVerDate Mar 15 2010 22:40 May 03, 2011 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S868.IS S868

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 868 IS

1 vestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–5) is amended by 

2 striking paragraph (1). 

3 (b) REPEAL OF PPACA MEDICAID MOE.—Section 

4 1902 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a) is 

5 amended by striking subsection (gg). 

6 (c) REPEAL OF PPACA CHIP MOE.—Section 

7 2105(d)(3) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

8 1397ee(d)(3)) is amended— 

9 (1) by striking subparagraph (A); 

10 (2) by redesignating subparagraphs (B) and 

11 (C) as subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively; and 

12 (3) in the paragraph heading, by striking 

13 ‘‘CONTINUATION OF ELIGIBILITY STANDARDS FOR

14 CHILDREN UNTIL OCTOBER 1, 2019’’ and inserting 

15 ‘‘CONTINUITY OF COVERAGE’’. 

16 (d) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

17 (1) Section 1902(a) of the Social Security Act 

18 (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)) is amended by striking para19 graph (74). 

20 (2) Effective January 1, 2014, the paragraph 

21 (14) of section 1902(e) added by section 2002(a) of 

22 Public Law 111–148 is amended by striking the 

23 third sentence of subparagraph (A). 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 868 IS

1 (e) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Except as provided in sub2 section (d)(2), the amendments made by this section shall 

3 take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
#### Mary Catania, Respondent, v Salvatore Catania, Appellant.

In a matrimonial action, defendant husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Orgera, J.), dated January 19, 1984, as directed him to pay, pendente lite, (1) all carrying charges on the marital residence, including but not limited to, mortgage, principal and interest, real estate taxes, homeowner’s insurance, water, utilities and fuel; (2) the sum of $25 per week per child for child support; and (3) the sum of $300 in counsel fees.

Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to defendant husband’s contention, Special Term was not obligated to consider the nine specific factors enumerated in Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (6) (a) in determining this application for pendente lite relief *{see, Lewis, v Lewis,*103 AD2d 714; *Belfiglio v Belfiglio,*99 AD2d 462; *Berley v Berley,*97 AD2d 726; *Liss v Liss,*87 AD2d 681). Special Term’s decision, in which it set forth the reasons for the determination reached, complied with the statutory directive (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6] [b]; [7] [d]). Under the circumstances, Special Term’s awards of pendente lite relief were not excessive. Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Mangano and Brown, JJ., concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America v. Christopher PADILLA also known as Toby Padilla also known as Christopher Gonzales, Christopher Padilla, Appellant.

No. 07-4682.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) Oct. 30, 2008.

Filed: Jan. 20, 2009.

Jose R. Arteaga, Esq., Robert A. Zauzmer, Esq., Office of United States Attorney, Philadelphia, PA, for United States of Anerica.

Louis T. Savino, Jr., Esq., Louis T. Savino & Associates, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellant.

BEFORE: McKEE, NYGAARD, and SILER,* Circuit Judges.

*

 Honorable Eugene E. Siler, Jr., Senior Circuit Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.

OPINION OF THE COURT

NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.

Appellant, Christopher Padilla, pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He was sentenced to 46 months of imprisonment, three years of supervised release, and $100 special assessment. Trial counsel failed to file a notice of appeal. The District Court, however, granted Appellant’s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, reinstating Padilla’s right to file a direct appeal *nunc pro tunc.*This appeal followed.

On appeal Padilla argues that the District Court erred by imposing a four-level sentencing enhancement upon him for possessing a firearm and recklessly endangering others by firing it in the ah’, in violation of Pennsylvania law. He argues that because trial counsel failed to object to the enhancement, counsel’s conduct falls below the horizon of acceptable professional effectiveness. We will affirm.

*664Counsel will not be considered ineffective if the objection to the enhancement would have been futile. It is the Appellant’s burden to establish that the District Court committed the plain error. Tó do so, he must show that (1) the District Court erred; (2) the error was obvious under the law at the time; and (3) the error affected substantial rights and affected the outcome of the proceedings. *Johnson v. United States,*520 U.S. 461, 467, 117 S.Ct. 1544, 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997).

We conclude that Padilla is not entitled to relief. The District Court was permitted to rely on the undisputed facts stated in the presentence report, *United States v. Siegel,*477 F.3d 87, 93 (3d Cir.2007). Those facts, contrary to Padilla’s argument on appeal, adequately set forth the elements of another felony offense — reckless endangerment — in violation of Pennsylvania law. Thus the record supports the sentencing enhancement imposed by the District Court. For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 684 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 3, 2011 

Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

AN ACT 

To provide for the conveyance of certain parcels of land 

to the town of Alta, Utah. 

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


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

S 684 RFH

1 SECTION 1. CONVEYANCE. 

2 (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this Act: 

3 (1) NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LAND.—The 

4 term ‘‘National Forest System land’’ means the par5 cels of National Forest System land that— 

6 (A) are located— 

7 (i) in sec. 5, T. 3 S., R. 3 E., Salt 

8 Lake meridian; 

9 (ii) in, and adjacent to, parcels of 

10 land subject to special use permit 

11 SLC102708, the authority of which expires 

12 on December 30, 2026; 

13 (iii) in the Wasatch-Cache National 

14 Forest in Salt Lake County, Utah; and 

15 (iv) in the incorporated boundary of 

16 the town of Alta, Utah; and 

17 (B) consist of approximately 2 acres (in18 cluding appurtenances). 

19 (2) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means 

20 the Secretary of Agriculture. 

21 (3) TOWN.—The term ‘‘Town’’ means the town 

22 of Alta, Utah. 

23 (b) CONVEYANCE.—On the request of the Town sub24 mitted to the Secretary by the date that is not later than 

25 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Sec26 retary shall convey to the Town, without consideration, all 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

S 684 RFH

1 right, title, and interest of the United States in and to 

2 the National Forest System land. 

3 (c) SURVEY; COSTS.— 

4 (1) IN GENERAL.—In accordance with para5 graphs (2) and (3), the exact acreage and legal de6 scription of the National Forest System land shall 

7 be determined by a survey approved by the Sec8 retary. 

9 (2) MAXIMUM AREA.—The acreage of the Na10 tional Forest System land determined under para11 graph (1) may not exceed 2 acres. 

12 (3) COSTS.—The Town shall pay the reasonable 

13 survey and other administrative costs associated 

14 with the conveyance. 

15 (d) USE OF NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LAND.—As 

16 a condition of the conveyance under subsection (b), the 

17 Town shall use the National Forest System land only for 

18 public purposes. 

19 (e) REVERSIONARY INTEREST.—In the deed to the 

20 Town, the Secretary shall provide that the National Forest 

21 System land shall revert to the Secretary, at the election 

22 of the Secretary based on the best interests of the United 

23 States, if the National Forest System land is used for a 

24 purpose other than a public purpose. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
4 

S 684 RFH

1 (f) ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—With re2 spect to the conveyance under subsection (b), the Sec3 retary may require such additional terms and conditions 

4 as the Secretary determines to be appropriate to protect 

5 the interests of the United States. 

Passed the Senate November 2, 2011. 

Attest: NANCY ERICKSON, 

Secretary. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2019372EN.01000802.xml

| 4.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 372/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/8

---

Appeal brought on 17 April 2019 by Renew Consorzio Energie Rinnovabili against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 20 February 2019 in Case T-39/19 Renew Consorzio Energie Rinnovabili v Commission and Italy

(Case C-325/19 P)

(2019/C 372/05)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Renew Consorzio Energie Rinnovabili (represented by: G. Passalacqua, avvocato)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Italian Republic

By order of 19 September 2019, the Court (Sixth Session) dismissed the appeal as manifestly inadmissible and ordered Renew Consorzio Energie Rinnovabili to bear its costs.

---
July 1, 2009


Contract between Grant Hartford Corporation & Garnet Range Resources


Grant Hartford Corporation (GHC), 619, SW Higgins, Suite O, Missoula, MT 59803, hereby
enters into an agreement to lease a vehicle from Garnet Range Resources L.L.C. (GRR), 619 SW Higgins,
Suite O, Missoula, MT 59803, under the following terms:


	
      1.
	
      GRR shall provide GHC the use of an automobile for a period of 2 years beginning April
22, 2009 to April 21, 2010,

	
      2.
	
      GHC shall pay GRR, in advance, the sum of $4,500 for the use of the vehicle for
the 2 year period, 

	
      3.
	
      GHC shall have at all times insurance coverage on the vehicle including liability
and comprehensive coverage,

	
      4.
	
      GHC shall be responsible for all repairs, licensing, fuel, and any other
costs associated with the vehicle during the lease period.




 

 


	
      Eric Sauve
Grant Hartford Corporation
	
      Joyce Charlton
Garnet Range Resources L.L.C.