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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

SAUL CASTILLO VAZQUEZ,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-70731

Agency No. A075-250-239

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 8, 2011** 

Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. 

Saul Castillo Vazquez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen

based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen,

FILED

MAR 28 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-70731

Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition for

review. 

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Castillo Vazquez’s motion

to reopen because he filed the motion nearly one year after the BIA’s September

10, 2004, order dismissing the underlying appeal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and

Castillo Vazquez failed to establish grounds for equitable tolling, see Iturribarria,

321 F.3d at 897 (equitable tolling available “when a petitioner is prevented from

filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due

diligence”). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 84 (Tuesday, May 1, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 21768]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10709]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. 97N-0511]


Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of OMB 
Approval; Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP); 
Procedures for the Safe and Sanitary Processing and Importing of Juice

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a 
collection of information entitled ``Hazard Analysis and Critical 
Control Point (HACCP); Procedures for the Safe and Sanitary Processing 
and Importing of Juice'' has been approved by the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Schlosburg, Office of 
Information Resources Management (HFA-250), Food and Drug 
Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-1223.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of January 19, 2001 
(66 FR 6138 at 6194), the agency announced that the proposed 
information collection had been submitted to OMB for review and 
clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, 
and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information 
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now 
approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 
0910-0466. The approval expires on March 31, 2004. A copy of the 
supporting statement for this information collection is available on 
the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets.

    Dated: April 24, 2001.
William K. Hubbard,
Senior Associate Commissioner for Policy, Planning, and Legislation.
[FR Doc. 01-10709 Filed 4-30-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S
<PAGE>





                                                                      EXHIBIT 23




                   REPORT AND CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of Lazare Kaplan International Inc. and subsidiaries of our report dated
August 11, 2000 included in the 2000 Annual Report to Stockholders of Lazare
Kaplan International Inc.

Our audits also included the consolidated financial statement schedule of Lazare
Kaplan International Inc. and subsidiaries listed in Item 14(a)2. This schedule
is the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to
express an opinion based on our audits. In our opinion, the consolidated
financial statement schedule, when considered in relation to the basic
financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material
respects the information set forth therein.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in

         1)    Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 33-20528), Registration
               Statement (Form S-8, No. 33-37617) and Registration Statement
               (Form S-8, No. 33-57560), each of which relate to the Lazare
               Kaplan International Inc. 1988 Stock Option Incentive Plan,

         2)    Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 333-40225) and Registration
               Statement (Form S-8, No. 333-92077) which relate to the Lazare
               Kaplan International Inc. 1997 Long Term Stock Incentive Plan,
               and

         3)    Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement (Form
               S-8, No. 333-52303), which relates to the Lazare Kaplan
               International Inc. 401(k) Plan for Savings and Investment

of our report dated August 11, 2000 with respect to the consolidated financial
statements incorporated herein by reference, and our report included in the
preceding paragraph with respect to the financial statement schedule included
in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Lazare Kaplan International Inc.



                                           ERNST & YOUNG, LLP

                                           New York, New York
                                           August 23, 2000
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6205 Engrossed in House (EH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6205

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 1449 West Avenue in Bronx, New York, as the ``Private Isaac T. 
                         Cortes Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. PRIVATE ISAAC T. CORTES POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 1449 West Avenue in Bronx, New York, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Private Isaac T. Cortes Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Private 
Isaac T. Cortes Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 15, 2010.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
111th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 6205

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 1449 West Avenue in Bronx, New York, as the ``Private Isaac T. 
                         Cortes Post Office''.
```
#### In the Matter of Percy H., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Westchester County (Bellantoni, J.), entered March 2, 1989, which (1) upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated July 15, 1988, made upon the appellant’s admission, finding that he had committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of attempted robbery in the second degree, and (2) upon an order of removal of the County Court, Westchester County (Nicolai, J.), dated July 8, 1988, made upon the appellant’s plea of guilty to the crime of robbery in the second degree, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent and placed him under the supervision of the New York State Division for Youth, Title III, for a period of 18 months from February 24, 1989 to August 23, 1990.

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

*698The Family Court’s decision to place the appellant in a New York State Division for Youth, Title III facility was not an improvident exercise of discretion, as the record clearly demonstrates that the placement is the least restrictive available alternative consistent with the appellant’s needs and the need for protection of the community *(see,*Family Ct Act § 352.2 [2]; *Matter of Katherine W,*62 NY2d 947). We have considered the appellant’s remaining claim and find that it is unpreserved for appellate review. Mangano, J. P., Fiber, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1



                         Consent of Independent Auditors

        We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements pertaining to the Nonqualified Stock Option Plan of IMCO Recycling
Inc. (Form S-8 No. 33-26641), the IMCO Recycling Inc. Amended and Restated Stock
Option Plan (Form S-8 No. 33-34745), the IMCO Recycling Inc. 1992 Stock Option
Plan (Form S-8 Nos. 333-76780, 333-00075, and 333-71339), the IMCO Recycling
Inc. Annual Incentive Program (Form S-8 Nos. 333-07091 and 333-71335), the IMCO
Recycling Inc. Stock Purchase Plan (Form S-8 No. 333-81949), and the 2000
Restricted Stock Plan (Form S-8 No. 333-55962) of our report dated February 4,
2002, with respect to the financial statements of IMCO Recycling included in the
Annual Report (10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2001.



                                                    /s/ Ernst & Young LLP



March 19, 2002
Dallas, Texas
|     |                                                                                                                       |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (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. |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |
| Dated: | November 3, 2015 | By: /s/ George Babich, Jr. |
|   |   | Title: President and Chief Executive Officer |
|   |   | (Principal Executive Officer) |
|   |   |   |
| Dated: | November 3, 2015 | By: /s/ James M. Lucania |
|   |   | Title: Acting Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |
|   |   | (Principal Financial Officer) |
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<CIK> 0001044847
<NAME> SURREY, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             109
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,418
<ALLOWANCES>                                       (46)
<INVENTORY>                                      1,209
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,795
<PP&E>                                           2,843
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (1,353)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   4,285
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,956
<BONDS>                                          1,282
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           393
<OTHER-SE>                                         607
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     4,285
<SALES>                                          1,847
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,847
<CGS>                                            1,408
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,790
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     4
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  55
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      4
<INCOME-TAX>                                        (1)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  3
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         3
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4279

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus MATTHEW JAMES WHITE, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (3:05-cr-00124) Submitted: August 30, 2006 Decided: September 27, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne, Appellate Counsel, Edward H. Weis, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T. Miller, United States Attorney, R. Gregory McVey, Assistant United States Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Matthew James White pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to one count of possession with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000). Because the district court found White had attempted an escape before his sentencing, White was sentenced to 292 months’ imprisonment. White appeals the reasonableness of his sentence. We affirm. White contends his sentence is unreasonable as the district court erroneously concluded he had obstructed justice. White’s contention rests solely on his belief that his testimony should have been believed over that of the Government’s witnesses. Credibility determinations, however, are within the sole province of the factfinder and will not be reassessed on appeal. See United States v. Saunders , 886 F.2d 56, 60 (4th Cir. 1989). Likewise, White contends his sentence is unreasonable “because it is greater than necessary to promote respect for the law and provide just punishment for the offense.” Because the district court properly calculated and considered the advisory guideline range and weighed the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000) factors, we conclude White’s 292-month sentence, which was below the statutory maximum and at the bottom of the advisory guideline range, is reasonable. See United States v. Hughes , 401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005); see alsoUnited States v. Green , 436 F.3d- 3 - 449, 457 (4th Cir.) (stating a sentence imposed within a properly calculated guideline range is presumptively reasonable), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006). Accordingly, we affirm White’s sentence. 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
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 2, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 21996]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10931]



[[Page 21996]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for 
Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, May 1, 2001, 1 PM to May 1, 
2001, 3 PM, NIH, Rockledge 2, Bethesda, MD, 20892 which was published 
in the Federal Register on April 13, 2001, 66 FR 19183.
    The meeting will now start at 1:30 PM and end at 3 PM. The date and 
location remains the same. The meeting is closed to the public.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 01-10931 Filed 5-1-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6490 

To amend the Soda Ash Royalty Reduction Act of 2006 to extend the 

reduced royalty rate for soda ash. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 2, 2010 

Mrs. LUMMIS (for herself and Mr. WU) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Soda Ash Royalty Reduction Act of 2006 

to extend the reduced royalty rate for soda ash. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF REDUCTION IN ROYALTY RATE 

4 ON SODA ASH. 

5 Section 102 of the Soda Ash Royalty Reduction Act 

6 of 2006 (Public Law 109–338; 30 U.S.C. 262 note) is 

7 amended by striking ‘‘5-year’’ and inserting ‘‘10-year’’. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Donald McCalla and Orretta McCalla, Respondents.

Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Miller, J.), dated August 4, 1986, which granted those branches of the defendants’ respective omnibus motions which were to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings in accordance herewith.

*281According to the testimony adduced at the *Wade*hearing, the complainant approached two police officers on motor patrol and told them he had just been robbed by three black men who had stolen his car. The complainant pointed out the car as being approximately *IV2*to 2 blocks ahead, and gave the officers a description of the men, which the officers then transmitted over the radio. The complainant got into the patrol car with the officers and they followed the car as it traveled eastbound on Gates Avenue, then southbound on Ralph Avenue. They temporarily lost sight of the car when it first turned onto Ralph Avenue, but when they turned onto Ralph Avenue themselves, they saw the car parked in front of a school. There was no one in the car, but the officers received a radio transmission that possible suspects were in the schoolyard.

The officers accompanied the complainant into the schoolyard and asked him if he recognized anyone among the 10 to 15 people standing there, and he identified three men. The officers then had the 10 to 15 people in the schoolyard line up along a fence and the complainant identified the same three men again.

The hearing testimony indicates that two separate identification procedures took place in the schoolyard. The first might be said to be in the nature of a showup, while the second might be characterized as an informal lineup procedure. However, in reaching its decision suppressing the identification testimony, the hearing court failed to differentiate between the two procedures. It would appear that the hearing court centered its thinking on the lineup procedure, but the court’s decision, which lacks specific findings as to the two identification procedures, is insufficient to enable this court to determine the precise nature and basis of the hearing court’s holding. Thus, we remit this case to the Supreme Court, Kings County, in order for the hearing court to make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to each of the identification procedures.

Additionally, upon remittitur, the People, if they be so advised, should be permitted to reopen the hearing for the purpose of affording them the opportunity previously denied them of producing the complainant in order to establish whether he had any independent basis for the identification of the defendants. Mangano, J. P., Niehoff, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.
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 Monarch Services, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ending April 30, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Marshall Chadwell, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to and for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my
knowledge:

    (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 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/   Marshall Chadwell
----------------------------
Marshall Chadwell
Chief Financial Officer
July 29, 2005
T.C. Memo. 1999-286

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

CAROL J. JARBOE, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 12294-98. Filed August 27, 1999.

Carol J. Jarboe, pro se. Edward J. Laubach, Jr. , for respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
FOLEY, Judge : By notice dated April 21, 1998, respondent determined the following deficiencies in, and additions to, Carol J. Jarboe's Federal income taxes:-2- Additions to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a)(1) Sec. 6654 1991 $7,788 $1,290 $280 1992 7,449 1,148 188 1995 13,359 3,340 726 1996 13,625 3,406 731 All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. In a petition filed July 10, 1998, Ms. Jarboe, then a resident of Marion, Pennsylvania, contested all of respondent's determinations. After concessions, the sole issue is whether the income tax laws are constitutional. The parties submitted this case fully stipulated pursuant to Rule 122. Ms. Jarboe, a self-employed practical nurse, received $42,480 and $43,481 of nonemployee compensation from Absolute Nursing Care, Inc., in 1995 and 1996, respectively. Ms. Jarboe also received $1,540 and $1,587 of taxable distributions from Principal Mutual Life Insurance Co. in 1995 and 1996, respectively. In 1995, Ms. Jarboe received $20 of taxable interest from Blue Ridge Bank. Ms. Jarboe did not file Federal income tax returns, and did not pay estimated taxes, relating to 1995 and 1996. Ms. Jarboe admits that she received compensation from Absolute Nursing Care, Inc., distributions from Principal Mutual Life Insurance Co., and interest from Blue Ridge Bank, but contends that the tax laws are unconstitutional. Her contention-3-

is meritless. Accordingly, we sustain respondent's determinations. To reflect the foregoing, Decision will be entered under Rule 155 .