alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Kelsey, Petty and Senior Judge Bumgardner 

BRIAN TODD LANCASTER 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 1311-09-2 PER CURIAM 

 OCTOBER 13, 2009 

FIBERCOM, INC. AND 

 VIGILANT INSURANCE CO. 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Brian Lancaster, pro se, on brief). 

 (Richard S. Sperbeck; Angela F. Gibbs; Midkiff, Muncie & Ross, 

P.C., on brief), for appellees. 

 Brian Lancaster appeals a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission finding 

that he failed to prove a causal relation between his January 17, 1991 accidental injury and his 

2008 condition and medical treatment. We have reviewed the record and the commission’s 

opinion and find that this appeal is without merit.1

 Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the commission in its final opinion. See Lancaster v. Fibercom, Inc., VWC File No. 

156-15-32 (May 13, 2009). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. 

Affirmed.

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 

1

 Attached as an exhibit to Lancaster’s opening brief, he has submitted a June 5, 2009 

letter from Dr. Stephen B. James. This letter is not part of the record on appeal. We have not 

considered it in reaching our opinion.
#### City of New Britain *v.*Andrew Glowasky

*Frederick W. Odell,*in support of the petition.

*Andrew 8. Aharonian,*in opposition.

Submitted April 14

decided May 6, 1975

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Division of the Court of Common Pleas is denied.
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 Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [B-40-2021]

On May 13, 2021, Cycle Force Group, LLC submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facilities within Subzone 107F, in Ames, Iowa.

The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the **Federal Register** inviting public comment (86 FR 27379, May 20, 2021). On September 10, 2021, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's decision that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The production activity described in the notification was authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including Section 400.14.

Dated: September 10, 2021.

Elizabeth Whiteman,

Acting Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2021-19913 Filed 9-14-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 19
- 0471 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. CARESSA JILL HARDY, aka GLENN LEE DIBLEY,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including August 2 , 2021 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 25 2021

06/25/2021

Case Number: DA 19-0471
#### Delia Dolores Aguirre OCHOA; Juan Jose Aguirre Ochoa; Amalia Marcela Aguirre Ochoa, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-75176.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 16, 2007 *.

Filed April 20, 2007.

Delia Dolores Aguirre Ochoa, San Leandro, CA, pro se.

CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Kurt B. Larson, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Delia Dolores Aguirre Ochoa and her two children seek review of an order of the *764Board of Immigration Appeals upholding an immigration judge’s order denying their application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary determination that petitioners failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. *See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft,*327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003).

Petitioners’ contention that the agency deprived their due process by misapplying the law to the facts of their case does not state a colorable due process claim. *See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales,*424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005) (“[T]raditional abuse of discretion challenges recast as alleged due process violations do not constitute color-able constitutional claims that would invoke our jurisdiction.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

**

**This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.