alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Arely Yazmin Guerra CRUZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 09-71933.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 5, 2011.*

Filed April 27, 2011.

Joubin Nasseri, Nasseri Law Group, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.

Joseph D. Hardy, Jr., Esquire, Trial, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Arely Yazmin Guerra Cruz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reissue its previous decision denying her motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo claims of due process violations. *Hernandez-Velasquez v. Holder,*611 F.3d 1073, 1077 (9th Cir.2010). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion or violate due process in denying Guerra Cruz’s motion to reissue because it had properly mailed the earlier decision at Guerra Cruz’s last known addresses. *See Singh v. Gonzales,*494 F.3d 1170, 1172 (9th Cir.2007) (BIA fulfills its statutory duty of service if the decision is mailed to the appropriate party at his or her address of record); *Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, *6801246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error for petitioner to prevail on a due process claim).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
EXHIBIT 32.1CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER      I, Bruce Cleland, the Chief Executive Officer of Campbell & Company, Inc. as managingoperator of The Campbell Fund Trust, certify that (i) the Form 10Q for the quarter ended March 31,2006 of The Campbell Fund Trust fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Form 10Q for thequarter ended March 31, 2006 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of The Campbell Fund Trust .        THE CAMPBELL FUND TRUST  By: Campbell & Company, Inc., managing operator       By: /s/ Bruce L. Cleland         Bruce L. Cleland    Chief Executive Officer    May 15, 2006
E  6
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350,


CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Intermec, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended September 27, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert J. Driessnack, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
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 results of operations of the Company.





/s/  Robert J. DriessnackRobert J. DriessnackChief Financial OfficerOctober 29, 2009
#### VEIT v. DILL.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.

May 14, 1894.)

Deed—Effect—Intebest Conveyed.

A deed conveying “all the dower and third and right and title of dower * * * and all other right of” the grantor, conveys all the rights of every kind that the grantor may have in the lands.

Appeal from special term, Kings county.

Action by Caroline Yeit against Elvira Dill for specific performance of a contract. From a judgment dismissing the complaint and awarding affirmative relief to defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before BROWN, P. J., and DYKMAN and PRATT, JJ.

Thomas H. Williams, for appellant.

Wm. B. Hurd, Jr., for respondent.

BROWN, P. J.

This action was brought in form for the specific performance of a contract for the sale of land, but really to recover the expense incurred in the examination of the title on the ground that the defendant, who was the vendor, could not convey a marketable title. The defendant acquired title to the land in question from John Moore. Moore’s title came from Mary Doyle and seven ■children of herself and her husband, John Doyle. The Doyle title was acquired in 1867, under a deed made to John and Mary, in which there were no words showing any intent on their part to hold as tenants in common. John Doyle died in 1881. The case presented is one where the parties appear to have been misled by the case of Meeker v. Wright, 76 N. Y. 262. Mrs. Doyle, after her husband’s death, contracted to sell the land to Moore. Upon the authority of the case cited it was assumed that Doyle and his wife held as tenants in common, and that the husband’s estate, upon his death, descended to his children, subject to the wife’s dower. Two deeds *938were accordingly executed and delivered to Moore. One conveyed the estate of Mrs. Doyle and three adult children in and to ten-fourteenths of the land; and the other conveyed four-fourteenths assumed to be vested in four infant children, and in this share Mrs. Doyle released her dower. The decision of this case rests upon the construction to be placed upon the latter instrument. The appellant claims it is a conveyance of the dower only, while the special term has decided that it was a conveyance of all her estate, whatever it might be. We agree with the trial court. The conveyance grants, releases, conveys, and quitclaims “all the dower and third and right and title of dower, * * * and all other right of me, the said Mary Doyle, in and to,” etc. The intent of Mrs. Doyle, under the contract, to convey the whole land, is clear, and she received the consideration expressed in the agreement. It is equally clear that she intended by the instrument from which I have quoted to convey not only her dower, but all other rights she had in the land. The instrument was, in effect, a quitclaim deed, and the language used was appropriate to vest in the grantee all estate she had in the land. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.
exh104.htm


 


Exhibit 10.4







AMENDMENT NO. 2







WHEREAS the parties executed as of December 11, 2009, an agreement (the “Agreement”), by and among, Diamond Technologies Inc., a Nevada corporation whose principal office is located at 2795 Barton Street East, Unit 5, Hamilton, ON L8E 2J8 (“DTI”); and John Cecil, Grace Cecil, Samuel Baker and Carlo Baker, who are directors and shareholders of Rophe Medical Technologies Inc., (collectively referred to as (:SELLER”); and Rophe Medical Technologies Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of Canada whose principal office is located at 255 Duncan Mills Road, Unit 504, Toronto, ON M3B 3H9 (“ROPHE”); and







WHEREAS the agreement was amended by “Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement” dated the 18th day of December, 2009 (the Agreement as so amended being hereinafter referred to as the “Amended Agreement”), and;







WHEREAS the parties desire to further amend and modify the Amended Agreement in the manner hereinafter provided;







NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the sum of ten dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:








	
1.  

	
The Amended Agreement is hereby further amended and modified as hereinafter provided:













	
2.  

	
In satisfaction of payment to the SELLER, referred to in paragraph 1.3 (a) of the Amended Agreement of the sum of $50,000 on or before the 30th day of January 2010, DTI shall







 



	
(a)  

	
Pay to John Cecil $35,000 by March 5th 2010 and








	
(b)  

	
Pay to John Cecil $15,000 by March 31st  2010.













	
3.  

	
In satisfaction of payment to the SELLER, referred to in paragraph 1.3 (a) of the Amended Agreement of the sum of $200,000 on March 31st, and $250,000 on April 30th, 2010 DTI shall













	
(a)  

	
Issue to the SELLER upon the execution hereof 3,000,000 common shares of DTI in the following manner:







John Cecil – 1,400,000 common shares


Grace Cecil – 1,400,000 common shares


Samuel Baker – 100,000 common shares


Carol Baker – 100,000 common shares








	
(b)  

	
Pay to John Cecil on March 31st, 2010, $50,000.














  





  











  







	
4.  

	
Terms used herein shall have the same meanings as in the Amended Agreement.













	
5.  

	
Except as hereinbefore provided all the provisions of the Amended Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.












 


Dated this 16th day of March, 2010.







Diamond Technologies Inc.


A Nevada Corporation












By:  VINCE LEITAO


President


I have authority to bind the corporation







 




 


Rophe Medical Technologies Inc.


A corporation organized under the laws of Canada












By:  JOHN CECIL


President


I have authority to bind the corporation
**EXHIBIT23.01****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-112728, 333-109809,333-102509, 333-66758 on Form S-8 and Registration Statement No. 333-140268 on Form S-3 of ourreports dated March 16, 2007, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financialstatement schedule of PDF Solutions, Inc. and subsidiaries (collectively, the “Company”) (whichexpresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the adoption ofStatement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123 (Revised 2004), *Share-Based Payment*) andmanagement’s report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting appearing inthis Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2006./s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLPSan Jose, California
#### Tarif A. Shabazz v State of New York Workers’ Compensation et al.

Application by claimant entitled "Notice of Appeal to Perfect” denied, and cross motions to dismiss said application granted, without costs, upon the grounds, *inter alia,*that (1) this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate claimant’s request for money damages, and (2) it does not appear that claimant has taken a timely appeal from the decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board about which he complains *(see,*Workers’ Compen*286sation Law § 23). Main, J. P., Casey, Weiss, Mikoll and Yesawich, Jr., JJ., concur.
SCOT-18-0000020

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

AZAEL DYTHIAN PERALES, Plaintiff,

vs.

CALIFORNIA STATE TREASURER’S OFFICE ET AL., Defendants.

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Upon consideration of plaintiff Azael Dythian Perales’s

complaint, filed on January 12, 2018, the documents attached

thereto and submitted in support thereof, and the record, it

appears that, to the extent plaintiff is seeking relief from this

court, this court is unable to provide plaintiff any relief. See

HRS § 602-5 (2016). Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed.

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of the

appellate court shall process the complaint without payment of

the filing fee.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, January 22, 2018.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCOT-18-0000020

22-JAN-2018

02:40 PM
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 77 (Thursday, April 20, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 21178]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-9924]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-6581-9]


Notice of Proposed Administrative Cost Recovery Settlement 
Pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
Liability Act; Double A Metals Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 122(i) of the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended 
(``CERCLA''), notice is hereby given of a proposed administrative cost 
recovery settlement under Section 122(h)(1) of CERCLA concerning the 
Double A Metals Site at 3321 South Pulaski, Chicago, Illinois 
(``Site''), which was signed by the EPA Director, Superfund Division, 
Region 5, on March 31, 2000. The settlement resolves an EPA claim under 
Section 107(a) of CERCLA against V.M.S. & D. Realty, Inc. The 
settlement requires the settling party to pay, to the Hazardous 
Substances Superfund, $106,763.45 and thirty (30) percent of any 
settlement or judgment amount that resolves issues related to the 
property transfer of the Site from Jepscor Metals, Inc. to V.M.S. & D. 
Realty, Inc.
    For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this 
notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to the 
settlement. The Agency will consider all comments received and may 
modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received 
disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the settlement is 
inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. The Agency's response to any 
comments received will be available for public inspection at the 
Superfund Records Center, located at 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Seventh 
Floor, Chicago, Illinois.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before May 22, 2000.

ADDRESSES: The proposed settlement and additional background 
information relating to the settlement are available for public 
inspection at Superfund Records Center, located at 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Seventh Floor, Chicago, Illinois. A copy of the proposed 
settlement may be obtained from Superfund Records Center, located at 77 
West Jackson Boulevard, Seventh Floor, Chicago, Illinois. Comments 
should reference the Double A Metals Site and EPA Docket No. V-W-00-C-
587 and should be addressed to Steven J. Murawski, Assistant Regional 
Counsel, 77 West Jackson Boulevard (C-14J), Chicago, Illinois, 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven J. Murawski, Assistant Regional 
Counsel, 77 West Jackson Boulevard (C-14J), Chicago, Illinois, 60604.

    Dated: March 31, 2000.
William E. Muno,
Director, Superfund Division, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 00-9924 Filed 4-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
**INSTRUCTIONS** 

E-Filing Exemption Form

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims 

625 Indiana Ave., NW Suite 900 

Washington, DC 20004 

202-418-HELP (3453)

Attn: Clerk of the Court

efiling@uscourts.cavc.gov

 CM/ECF E-FILING EXEMPTION FORM

This form is used to file for an exemption from the mandatory electronic filing requirement

per Miscellaneous Order 08-08, dated October 3, 2008. 

The form must be completed and then submitted to the attention of the Clerk of the Court by

email or postal mail to the above address or by facsimile (202-501-5848).

All form fields are mandatory and the form must include the applicant's signature. The

Court will return all forms that have not been signed. The applicant can submit additional

documents with this form to support their request for exemption. 
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims 

625 Indiana Ave., NW Suite 900 

Washington, DC 20004 

202-418-HELP (3453)

Attn: Clerk of the Court

efiling@uscourts.cavc.gov

 CM/ECF E-FILING EXEMPTION FORM

This form is used to apply for an exemption from the Court's electronic filing system that is mandatory for all represented 

parties unless granted an exemption per the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims Miscellaneous Order No. 08-08, 

dated October 3, 2008. 

The following information is mandatory:

Full Name:

 (First, Middle, Last)

Telephone Number: Fax Number:

Email Address:

Firm Name:

 (if applicable)

Current Mailing Address:

(include Suite #, City, State & Zip)

I am counsel of record for the following party:

I am counsel of record for the following appeal(s)

case numbers:

I hereby request an exemption from the Court's

mandatory requirement for electronic filing for all

represented parties. The basis for my request is

(if additional space is required for documentation,

please attach to this form): 

Please complete the form and submit by email or postal mail to the above 

address, or by facsimile at 202-501-4848.

Applicant's Signature: 

Date Signed:

Form E-2 

(Rev. 06-22)
# USCIS Revises Policy Manual to Align with New Fee Rule

04/01/2024

We are revising our guidance (PDF, 364.37 KB) in the USCIS Policy Manual to align with the Fee Schedule and Changes to Certain Other Immigration Benefit Request Requirements Final Rule published in the Federal Register on Jan. 31, 2024, and effective on April 1, 2024.

Revisions to the policy manual apply to all applications and petitions postmarked on or after April 1.

We will use the postmark date of a filing to determine which form version and fees are correct, but we will use the receipt date for purposes of any regulatory or statutory filing deadlines.

The revised guidance covers new form fees, fee waivers and fee exemptions, limits on the number of beneficiaries for certain employment-based forms, and a new form supplement for orphan intercountry adoption cases.

Please visit the Frequently Asked Questions page, which we recently updated, for more details about the fee rule and fee schedule.

**More Information**

For more information about USCIS, please visit uscis.gov or follow us on Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, and LinkedIn.

04/01/2024

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

MISC. NO. 08-09

IN RE: RECALL OF RETIRED JUDGES

O R D E R

Miscellaneous Order No. 07-09 is hereby revoked.

DATED: September 30, 2009 BY THE COURT:

WILLIAM P. GREENE, JR.

Chief Judge
#### First United Methodist Church of Syracuse et al., Respondents, and Roman Catholic Diocese of Syracuse et al., Intervenors-Respondents, v City of Syracuse, et al., Appellants.

(Appeal No. 2.)

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We affirm Special Term’s order which denied defendants’ motion for renewal for reasons stated at Special Term (Murphy, J.). We add only that the city’s appeal from denial of its motion for reargument must be dismissed since no appeal lies from an order denying reargument *(see, Hughes v Nussbaumer, Clarke & Velzy,*140 AD2d 989). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Murphy, J. — renewal.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Green and Davis, JJ.
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.
 Office of Management and Budget
 Section 1014(e) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344) requires a monthly report listing all budget authority for the current fiscal year for which, as of the first day of the month, a special message had been transmitted to Congress. This report gives the status, as of April 1, 2001, of two deferrals contained in one special message for FY 2001. The message was transmitted to Congress on January 18, 2001. Deferrals (Attachments A and B) As of April 1, 2001, $1.6 billion in budget authority was being deferred from obligation. Attachment B shows the status of each deferral reported during FY 2001. Information from Special Message The special message containing information on the deferrals that are covered by this cumulative report is printed in the edition of the 
                    **Federal Register**
                     cited below: 66 FR 8985, Monday, February 5, 2001 Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr., Director.
 Attachment A—Status of FY 2001 Deferrals
[In millions of dollars]
Budgetary resourcesDeferrals proposed by the President
1,946.7Routine Executive releases through April 1, 2001
−343.6Overturned by the CongressCurrently before the Congress
1,603.1


BILLING CODE 3110-01-U [FR Doc. 01-10005 Filed 4-20-01; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3110-01-C
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED July 13, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-51431 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JUAN CARLOS ZACARIAS-AMADOR, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:04-CR-668-ALL

-------------------- Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Juan Carlos Zacarias-Amador raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
#### BERNSTEIN v. UPTON et al.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.

May 14, 1894.)

Action by Lewis Bernstein against Georgiana Upton and others, executors, etc.

Argued before BROWN, P. J., and DYKMAN and CULLEN, JJ.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.