alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

WILLIAM G. MOORE, 3:15-CV-00484-JE

Petitioner, ORDER

v. 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

and MARION FEATHER,

 Respondents.

BROWN, Judge.

Magistrate Judge John Jelderks issued Findings and

Recommendation (#26) on September 10, 2015, in which he

recommends the Court deny Petitioner William G. Moore’s Petition

(#2) for Writ of Habeas Corpus, deny Petitioner’s Motion (#25)

for Immediate Release, and decline to issue a certificate of

appealability. Petitioner filed timely Objections to the

1 - ORDER

Case 3:15-cv-00484-JE Document 34 Filed 10/28/15 Page 1 of 3
Findings and Recommendation. The matter is now before this Court

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 72(b).

When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate

Judge's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make

a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's

report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). See also Dawson v. Marshall, 561

F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328

F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc). 

This Court has carefully considered Petitioner’s Objections

and concludes they do not provide a basis to modify the Findings

and Recommendation. The Court also has reviewed the pertinent

portions of the record de novo and does not find any error in the

Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation. 

CONCLUSION

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Jelderks’s Findings and

Recommendation (#26) and, accordingly, DENIES the Petition (#2)

for Writ of Habeas Corpus, DENIES Petitioner’s Motion (#25) for

Immediate Release, and DECLINES to issue a certificate of 

2 - ORDER

Case 3:15-cv-00484-JE Document 34 Filed 10/28/15 Page 2 of 3
appealability.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 28th day of October, 2015.

/s/ Anna J. Brown

 

ANNA J. BROWN

United States District Judge

3 - ORDER

Case 3:15-cv-00484-JE Document 34 Filed 10/28/15 Page 3 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

NANCY NIX, No. 3:16-cv-00693-SB

Plaintiff,

v. 

 

NORTH SANTIAM FUNERAL SERVICE, ORDER

LLC, an Oregon limited liability company, 

 Defendant.

HERNANDEZ, District Judge:

Magistrate Judge Beckerman issued a Findings and Recommendation (#28) on December

2, 2016, in which she recommends that this Court grant Defendant's motion for summary

judgment and dismiss the Complaint. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).

Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation were

timely filed, I am relieved of my obligation to review the record de novo. United States v.

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also United States v. Bernhardt,

840 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9th Cir. 1988) (de novo review required only for portions of Magistrate

1 - ORDER

Case 3:16-cv-00693-SB Document 34 Filed 01/27/17 Page 1 of 2
Judge's report to which objections have been made). Having reviewed the legal principles de

novo, I find no error. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Beckerman's Findings & Recommendation [28].

Accordingly, Defendant's motion for summary judgment [13] is granted and this case is

dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this day of , 2017.

 

MARCO A. HERNANDEZ

United States District Judge

2 - ORDER

Case 3:16-cv-00693-SB Document 34 Filed 01/27/17 Page 2 of 2
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 Annual Report of Altair Nanotechnologies Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Edward Dickinson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 Company.







/s/  Edward
Dickinson


Edward
Dickinson


Chief
Financial Officer


March 14,
2008
#### In the Matter of Pocahontas Alexander, Also Known as Pocahontas Beckwith, Petitioner, v David Axelrod, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health, et al., Respondents.

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health, dated January 7, 1985, which adopted the report of an Administrative Law Judge and ordered that the record of the report of patient neglect on the part of the petitioner not be amended or expunged.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

Contrary to the petitioner’s claim, there was substantial evidence to support the determination that the petitioner had committed an act. of neglect as defined in 10 NYCRR 81.1 (c) by leaving a patient unattended on a toilet in the Franklin Park Nursing Home, which resulted in a fall in which she sustained a fractured hip. The uncontradicted evidence adduced at the hearing revealed that the petitioner violated the policy of the nursing home by leaving the patient unattended *(see, Matter of Stoker v Tarentino,*64 NY2d 994; *Matter of Jones v Axelrod,*118 AD2d 1011).

We also reject the petitioner’s claim that the commissioner’s *666interpretation of the regulations which define patient neglect is arbitrary and capricious *(see,*Public Health Law § 2803-d; 10 NYCRR 81.1 [c]). Rubin, J. P., Lawrence, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.
#### JOSEPH ROMMELL, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT, COMMERCIAL CONTRACTING CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

See same case below: 66 *N. J. Super.*30.

*Messrs. Lenox, Giordano & Lenox*and *Mr. Richard J. S. Barlow, Jr.,*for the defendant-petitioner.

*Messrs. Strylcer, Tams & Dill, Mr. Buriis W. Horner*and *Mr. William T. Sutphin*for the defendant-respondent.

May 15, 1961.

Denied.
MCLEOD CREEK NEAR PARK CITY, UTLatitude: 40.687Longitude: -111.534Elevation: 6600

MCLEOD CREEK NEAR PARK CITY, UT

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Brighton Site Page...



Brighton

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Mill-D North Site Page...



Mill-D North

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Thaynes Canyon Site Page...



Thaynes Canyon

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Parleys Upper Site Page...



Parleys Upper
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 9, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 05-50243

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JESUS RICARDO REYES-MARTINEZ,

Defendant-Appellant,

Consolidated With

 No. 05-50244

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JESUS RICARDO REYES-MARTINEZ, also

known as Jesus Ricardo Reyes,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:04-CR-1591-ALL

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

Before REAVLEY, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jesus Ricardo

Reyes-Martinez raises arguments that are foreclosed by
No. 05-50243

-2-

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998),

which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The

Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
#### In the Matter of William Nuckel, Appellant, v City of Yonkers et al., Appellants, et al., Respondents.

In a hybrid proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 and action for a declaratory judgment, *inter alia,*(1) to review a determination of the Mayor of the City of Yonkers dated August 3, 1987, which declared the office of the Councilmember for the Third Ward for the City of Yonkers to be vacant and appointed John Michael Drobnak to said office, and (2) to declare that the petitioner lawfully occupies the office of the Councilmember for the Third Ward, the petitioner, and the City of Yonkers, Aloysius Moczydlowski and Rene Frayman separately appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated August 19, 1987, which, *inter alia,*declared that John Michael Drobnak is the duly appointed Councilmember for the Third Ward and dismissed the proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, for reasons stated by Justice Dachenhausen in his memorandum decision.

In addition, we note that the Mayor’s authority to fill a vacancy in the office of Councilmember without the advice and consent of the Yonkers City Council is provided for in Yonkers City Charter § C3-5, as well as Second Class Cities Law § 15, both of which are consistent with Yonkers City Charter § 3-7 (B). Mollen, P. J., Brown, Niehoff and Rubin, JJ., concur.
#### BANKER, Respondent, v. POSTAL TEL. CABLE CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court. Appellate Division, Second Department.

December 1, 1896.)

Action by Isaac Banker against the Postal Telegraph Cable Company.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concur.
# C_2010173EN.01001701.xml

| 30.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 173/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 173/17

---

Statement of revenue and expenditure of the European Police Office for the financial year 2010 — Amending Budget No 1

(2010/C 173/05)

REVENUE

| Title
  Chapter | Heading | Budget 2010 | Amending budget No 1 | New amount |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 9 |
| REVENUE |
| 9 0 | SUBSIDIES AND CONTRIBUTIONS | 79 724 150 | 263 438 | 79 987 588 |
| 9 1 | HOST STATE CONTRIBUTION | 244 000 | 1 136 060 | 1 380 060 |
| 9 2 | OTHER REVENUE | 100 000 | 2 790 850 | 2 890 850 |
| 9 3 | ART. 58(4) EUROPOL COUNCIL DECISION | p.m. | 8 564 610 | 8 564 610 |
| | Title 9 — Total | 80 068 150 | 12 754 958 | 92 823 108 |
| | GRAND TOTAL | 80 068 150 | 12 754 958 | 92 823 108 |

Title

Chapter

Heading

Budget 2010

Amending budget No 1

New amount

9

9

REVENUE

REVENUE

9 0

SUBSIDIES AND CONTRIBUTIONS

79 724 150

263 438

79 987 588

9 1

HOST STATE CONTRIBUTION

244 000

1 136 060

1 380 060

9 2

OTHER REVENUE

100 000

2 790 850

2 890 850

9 3

ART. 58(4) EUROPOL COUNCIL DECISION

p.m.

8 564 610

8 564 610

Title 9 — Total

Title 9 — Total

80 068 150

80 068 150

12 754 958

12 754 958

92 823 108

92 823 108

GRAND TOTAL

GRAND TOTAL

80 068 150

80 068 150

12 754 958

12 754 958

92 823 108

92 823 108

EXPENDITURE

| Title
  Chapter | Heading | Appropriations 2010 | Amending budget No 1 | New amount |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 |
| STAFF |
| 1 1 | STAFF IN ACTIVE EMPLOYMENT | 45 422 000 | 3 926 910 | 49 348 910 |
| | Title 1 — Total | 48 143 000 | 3 926 910 | 52 069 910 |
| 2 |
| OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURE |
| 2 6 | ART. 58(4) EUROPOL COUNCIL DECISION | p.m. | 8 564 610 | 8 564 610 |
| | Title 2 — Total | 12 090 000 | 8 564 610 | 20 654 610 |
| 3 |
| OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES |
| 3 6 | OPERATIONAL EXPENDITURE RELATED TO SUBSIDIES AND GRANTS | p.m. | 263 438 | 263 438 |
| | Title 3 — Total | 19 835 150 | 263 438 | 20 098 588 |
| | GRAND TOTAL | 80 068 150 | 12 754 958 | 92 823 108 |

Title

Chapter

Heading

Appropriations 2010

Amending budget No 1

New amount

1

1

STAFF

STAFF

1 1

STAFF IN ACTIVE EMPLOYMENT

45 422 000

3 926 910

49 348 910

Title 1 — Total

Title 1 — Total

48 143 000

48 143 000

3 926 910

3 926 910

52 069 910

52 069 910

2

2

OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURE

OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURE

2 6

ART. 58(4) EUROPOL COUNCIL DECISION

p.m.

8 564 610

8 564 610

Title 2 — Total

Title 2 — Total

12 090 000

12 090 000

8 564 610

8 564 610

20 654 610

20 654 610

3

3

OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES

OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES

3 6

OPERATIONAL EXPENDITURE RELATED TO SUBSIDIES AND GRANTS

p.m.

263 438

263 438

Title 3 — Total

Title 3 — Total

19 835 150

19 835 150

263 438

263 438

20 098 588

20 098 588

GRAND TOTAL

GRAND TOTAL

80 068 150

80 068 150

12 754 958

12 754 958

92 823 108

92 823 108

---
#### Ashok Kashelkar, Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent.

Submitted April 30, 2007;

decided May 8, 2007

Appeal transferred, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, to the Appellate Division, First Department, upon the ground that a direct appeal does not lie when questions other than the constitutional validity of a statutory provision are involved (NY Const, art VI, § 3 [b] [2]; § 5 [b]; CPLR 5601 [b] [2]).
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2
                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Robert C. Bateman, Chief Financial Officer of Applied Microsystems
Corporation (the "Registrant"), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

        (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant, to which this
        certification is attached as an exhibit (the "Report"), fully complies
        with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
        1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

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


Dated: November 13, 2002                                 /s/  Robert C. Bateman
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Robert C. Bateman
                                                         Chief Financial Officer
#### Alexander J. Kovacs *v.*Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Bethel

*Francis J. Collins,*in support of the petition.

*Stephen C. Gallagher,*in opposition.

Submitted April 29

decided May 8, 1975

The plaintiff’s petition for certification for appeal from the Court of Common Pleas in Fairfield County is denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM UNIVISION
COMMUNICATION INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES STATEMENT OF EARNINGS AND BALANCE SHEET AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          10,660
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  125,433
<ALLOWANCES>                                     8,584
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               138,754
<PP&E>                                         161,371
<DEPRECIATION>                                  37,518
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 967,755
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          144,029
<BONDS>                                        460,830
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           12,120
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           853
<OTHER-SE>                                     345,376
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   967,755
<SALES>                                        459,741
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               459,741
<CGS>                                          159,619
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  159,619
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,312
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              40,147
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 63,694
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (19,465)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             83,159
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    83,159
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.97<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.71<F1>
<FN>
<F1> On December 3, 1997, the Board of Directors approved a two-for-one stock 
split for all common stockholders of record as of December 17, 1997. The common
stock split became effective on January 12, 1998, and each stockholder received
one new share of common stock for each outstanding share of the Company's common
stock held as of the record date. All references to the number of shares and to 
per-share data included in the consolidated financial statements and footnotes 
in the 1997 Annual Report on Form 10K have been adjusted to reflect the stock
split on a retroactive basis. Financial Data Schedules for periods prior to 
December 31, 1997 have not been restated other than for earnings per share 
amounts.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
[Cite as State v. Anderson , 124 Ohio St.3d 513, 2010-Ohio-1109.]

T HE S TATE OF O HIO , A PPELLANT AND C ROSS -A PPELLEE , v . A NDERSON , A PPELLEE AND C ROSS -A PPELLANT . [Cite as State v. Anderson , 124 Ohio St.3d 513, 2010-Ohio-1109.] Discretionary appeal accepted, discre tionary cross-appeal not accepted, and judgment of the court of appeals reve rsed in part on the authority of State v. Whitfield. (No. 2009-1761

— Submitted January 12, 2010

— Decided March 25, 2010.)
A PPEAL and C ROSS

- APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 91209, 183 Ohio App.3d 522, 2009-Ohio-3900.

__________________ {¶ 1} The discretionary appeal is accepted. {¶ 2} The discretionary cross-appeal is not accepted. {¶ 3} The judgment of the court of app eals is reversed, on the authority
of State v. Whitfield , 124 Ohio St.3d 319, 2010-Ohio-2, 922 N.E.2d 182, to the extent that the court of appeals directed the trial court to vacate the finding of guilt on one of the allied offenses.
M OYER , C.J., and L UNDBERG S TRATTON , O’C ONNOR , O’D ONNELL , and
C UPP , JJ., concur.
P FEIFER and L ANZINGER , JJ., dissent and would not accept the discretionary appeal.

__________________ William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Pr osecuting Attorney, and Kristen L. Sobieski, Assistant Prosecuting Attorn ey, for appellant and cross-appellee. Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defende r, and Andrew J. King, Assistant Public Defender, for appellee and cross-appellant.

______________________
II

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1786

To provide for the conduct of a study and report concerning the ability

of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to address the growing

threat of viral epidemics and biological and chemical terrorism.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 17, 1998

Mr. FAIRCLOTH introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources

A BILL

To provide for the conduct of a study and report concerning

the ability of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to address the growing threat of viral epidemics

and biological and chemical terrorism.

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

3 SECTION 1. STUDY CONCERNING THE CAPABILITIES OF

4 THE CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND

5 PREVENTION.

6 (a) STUDY.—The Secretary of Health and Human

7 Services shall conduct a study concerning the ability of,

8 and resources available to, the Centers for Disease Control
2

•S 1786 IS

1 and Prevention to address the growing threats of viral

2 epidemics and biologic and chemical terrorism.

3 (b) REPORT.—Not later than 60 days after the date

4 of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and

5 Human Services shall prepare and submit to the appro6 priate committees of Congress a report concerning the re7 sults of the study conducted under subsection (a), includ8 ing the recommendations of the Secretary for improving

9 the ability and resources of the Centers for Disease Con10 trol and Prevention to address the growing threats of viral

11 epidemics and biologic and chemical terrorism.

Æ
FOUNTAIN CREEK AT COLORADO SPRINGS, COLatitude: 38.816Longitude: -104.823Elevation: 5900

FOUNTAIN CREEK AT COLORADO SPRINGS, CO

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Glen Cove Site Page...



Glen Cove
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MILTON MAURICIO TACHIN ORTIZ,

Petitioner,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 23

- 900 Agency No. A208

- 884

- 576

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of an

Immigration Judge

Submitted February 21, 2024 **

Before: FERNANDEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges

. Milton Mauricio Tachin Ortiz , a native and citizen of El Salvador , petitions pro se for review of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order affirming an asylum officer’s negative reasonable fear determination. We have jurisdiction under

8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence an IJ ’s negative reasonable

* 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

FEB 28 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 23

- 900

fear determination

. Orozco

- Lopez v. Garland , 11 F.4th 764, 774 (9th Cir. 2021). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Tachin Ortiz failed to show a reasonable possibility that the harm he f ears would be on account of a protected ground. See Bartolome v. Sessions , 904 F.3d 803, 814 (9th Cir. 2018) (no basis for withholding of removal where petitioner did not show a nexus to a protected ground).

Substantial evidence also supports the IJ ’s determination that Tachin Ortiz failed to show a reasonable possibility of torture by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador

. See Andrade

- Garcia v. Lynch , 828 F.3d 829, 836

- 37 (9th Cir. 2016) (petitioner failed to demonstrate government acquiescence sufficient to establish a reasonable possibility of future

torture ). Tachin Ortiz ’s contention that he was beaten by the police is not properly

before the court because he failed to raise it before the BIA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (exhaustion of administrative remedies required); see also Santos

Zacaria v. Garland , 598 U.S. 411, 417

- 19 (2023) (section 1252(d)(1) is a non

jurisdictional claim

- processing rule)

. The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate

issues. The motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.