alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Delia N. DE LEON, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-73431.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 25, 2010.*

Filed June 11, 2010.

Frank H. Kim, I, Esquire, National Legal Associates, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Aliza Bessie Alyeshmerni, Trial, Jeffery R. Leist, Trial, OIL, Richard M. Evans, Esquire, Assistant Director, Stacy Stiffel Paddack, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

*644MEMORANDUM **

Delia N. De Leon, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, *Singh v. INS,*295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002), and de novo questions of law, *Ram v. INS,*243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.2001). We deny the petition for review.

De Leon has waived any challenge to the BIA’s dispositive determination that her second motion to reopen was numerically barred. *See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,*94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996).

We do not reach De Leon’s remaining contentions.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gregory Peter HANSEN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-7380.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 14, 2006.

Decided: Dec. 20, 2006.

Gregory Peter Hansen, Appellant Pro Se. ■ Amy Elizabeth Ray, Office of the United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*275PER CURIAM:

Gregory Peter Hansen seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 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 Hansen 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.*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Teofilo Rodriguez VALENCIA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-20845

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 22, 2010.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Molly Estelle Odom, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, STEWART, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Teofilo Rodriguez Valencia presents arguments that he concedes are foreclosed by *United States v. Ayala,*542 F.3d 494, 495 (5th Cir.2008), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 1388, 173 L.Ed.2d 639 (2009), which held that a violation of Texas Penal Code § 21.11(a) constitutes the offense of sexual abuse of a minor, justifying a U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) offense level enhancement. The appellant’s unopposed motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification of the Chief Financial Officer  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 periodic report of Westaff, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
ended November 1, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Dirk A. Sodestrom, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that:



Date:
February 13, 2004

| | By: | /s/ Dirk A. SodestromDirk A. Sodestrom
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906
has been provided to Westaff, Inc. and will be retained by Westaff, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---

QuickLinks
SCPW-23-0000275

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ʻ I

________________________________________________________________
ERNEST HORCAJO, III, Petitioner,

vs.

THE HONORABLE HENRY T. NAKAMOTO, Judge of the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit, State of Hawai ʻ i, Respondent Judge,

and

STATE OF HAWAI ʻ I, Respondent.

________________________________________________________________

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (3CPN-20-0000003)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Recktenwald , C.J., McKenna, and Eddins, JJ

. , Circuit Judge Castagnetti and Circuit Judge Souza , assigned by reason of vacanc ies )

Upon consideration of the petition for writ of mandamus

filed on April 5, 2023, the answers to the petition filed on May

8, 2023, and the record, Respondent Judge has provided the

relief sought in this original proceeding by acting on

Petitioner’s pending Hawai ʻ i Rules of Penal Procedure Rule 40

proceeding. Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-23-0000275 22-MAY-2023 09:37 AM Dkt. 16 ODDP2 I t is ordered that the petition is dismissed as moot

.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ʻ i, May 22 , 2023

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Todd W. Eddins

/s/ Jeannette H. Castagnetti

/s/ Kevin A.K. Souza
<PAGE>   1

                                  EXHIBIT 21.1

                   SUBSIDIARIES OF NORCAL WASTE SYSTEMS, INC.

Alta Environmental Services, Inc.
Alta Equipment Leasing Co., Inc.
Auburn Placer Disposal Service
B&J Drop Box
City Garbage Company of Eureka
Consolidated Environmental Industries, Inc.
Del Norte Disposal, Inc.
Dixon Sanitary Service
Envirocal, Inc.
Foothill Disposal Co., Inc.
Golden Gate Disposal & Recycling Company
Integrated Environmental Systems, Inc.
J.J.V. Disposal, Inc.
Los Altos Garbage Company
Macor, Inc.
Mason Land Reclamation Company, Inc.
Norcal Disposal and Recycling, Inc.
Norcal/San Bernardino, Inc.
Norcal Service Center, Inc.
Norcal Waste Services of Sacramento, Inc.
Norcal Waste Solutions, Inc.
Norcal Waste Systems of Butte County, Inc.
Norcal Waste Systems of Southern California, Inc.
Recycle Central, Inc.
San Bruno Garbage Co., Inc.
Sanitary Fill Company
South Valley Refuse Disposal, Inc.
Sunset Properties, Inc.
Sunset Scavenger Company
Vacaville Sanitary Service
Vallejo Garbage Service, Inc.
West Coast Recycling Co.
Western Placer Recovery Company
Yuba Sutter Disposal, Inc.

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

      All subsidiaries are California corporations, with the exception of Mason
      Land Reclamation Company, Inc. (Missouri corporation).


                                   -22-
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                        CONSENT OF DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
333-06477, 333-22063, 333-25457, 333-67731, 333-75677, 333-83239 and 333-96145
on Form S-3 and Nos. 333-29447 and 333-91143 on Form S-8 of Globalstar
Telecommunications Limited of our reports dated April 5, 2002 (which report
expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating
to going concern), on the financial statements of Globalstar Telecommunications
Limited, the consolidated financial statements of Globalstar, L.P. and the
balance sheets of Globalstar Capital Corporation and Loral/ QUALCOMM Satellite
Services, L.P. appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Globalstar
Telecommunications Limited and Globalstar, L.P. for the year ended December 31,
2001.

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

San Jose, California
April 12, 2002

                                       E-3
CIRCUIT COURT OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY

#### Melson v. Melson

March 25, 1992

Case No. CH90-1598

By Judge Herbert C. Gill, Jr.

The Court has reviewed the above-styled case. The Court cannot, however, enter the sketch final decree of divorce submitted on behalf of the plaintiff.

The original Bill of Complaint was filed on November 13, 1990. The Bill of Complaint alleges that the parties separated on June 15, 1989. Grounds for a divorce based upon a one-year separation existed at the time of filing.

The Amended Bill of Complaint was filed on January 10, 1992. An Answer was filed on behalf of the defendant on January 21, 1992. The Amended Bill of Complaint alleges that the parties separated on January 8, 1991.

Apparently, the parties reconciled sometime between November 13, 1990, and January 8, 1991. If, in fact, a reconciliation occurred after the filing of the original Bill of Complaint, a cause of action for a divorce based upon a one-year separation ceased to exist.

Further, an amended bill of complaint is in the nature of an amendment of the original bill and must be read with it, and the two must be regarded as constituting one bill. IB M.J. *Amendments,*§ 27 (1980). The general rule has long been that the amendment related back to the commencement of the suit and takes from the date, and the defendant cannot by amendment be called upon to answer to anything which has occurred since that time. *Id.*

Under the relation back doctrine, the Amended Bill of Complaint related back to November 13, 1990. The pleadings thus become in*254consistent and illogical as to the separation date of January 8, 1991, and the existence of grounds for a divorce based upon a one-year separation.

Accordingly, the court is of the opinion that the Bill of Complaint and the Amended Bill of Complaint in this suit should be dismissed. A new cause of action may be brought on behalf of the plaintiff.
#### WAINER et al. *v.*UNITED STATES.

No. 51.

Argued October 12, 1936.

Decided November 9, 1936.

*Mr. John E. Dougherty,*with whom *Messrs. Harry C. Heyl*and *Irwin S. Rubelle*were on the brief, for petitioners.

*Mr. Gordon Dean*argued the cause, and *Solicitor General Reed, Assistant Attorney General McMahon,*and *Mr. Mahlon D. Kiefer*filed a brief, for the United States.

Mr. Justice Roberts

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The petitioners were convicted and sentenced in the District Court under an indictment, the second count of which charged them with conducting the business of wholesale liquor dealers without having paid the special tax imposed by the federal revenue laws. The judgment was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals.1 Certiorari was granted limited to the question whether the statute *93upon which the second count of the indictment was based was repealed by the National Prohibition Act2 and has not been reenacted.

Many of the existing revenue acts imposing taxes in respect of manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors were superseded by the National Prohibition Act.3 The effect of § 5 of the Willis-Campbell *Act**4***was to reenact all such laws in existence when national prohibition became effective, save such as were in direct conflict with any provision of the National Prohibition Act or the Willis-Campbell Act.5 The statutes taxing the business of conducting a wholesale liquor business and imposing the penalties for so doing without the payment of the tax6 were not in direct conflict with the prohibition act and were, therefore, reenacted.7 The difficulty of paying the excise upon the privilege of carrying on a business which is prohibited does not preclude the prescription of sanctions for non-payment.8 Petitioners insist it is a contradiction in terms to say the laws of the United States at the same time prohibit and license an occupation. The contention is based on misconception of the nature of the exaction. The United States has not licensed the liquor business but, as is clearly within its power, has laid an *94excise upon the doing of the business whether lawfully or unlawfully conducted.9

The judgment is

*Affirmed.*

Mr. Justice Stone took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

1

82 F. (2d) 305.

2

 Act of October 28, 1919, c. 85, 41 Stat. 305, U. S. C. Tit. 27, *passim.*

3

*United States*v. *Yuginovich,*256 U. S. 450.

4

 Nov. 23, 1921, c. 134, 42 Stat. 222, TJ. S. C. Tit. 27, § 3.

5

*United States*v. *Stafoff,*260 U. S. 477.

6

 R. S. 3242; U. S. C. Tit. 26, § 1397.

7

*United States*v. *Remus,*260 U. S. 477, 479, 480. The decision to the contrary by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in *Bailey*v. *United States,*5 F. (2d) 437, was not followed by the same court in the later case of *Anderson*v. *United States,*30 F. (2d) 485.

8

*United States*v. *One Ford Coupe,*272 U. S. 321, 327.

9

*United States*v. *Constantine,*296 U. S. 287, 293.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 107 (Monday, June 4, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 30031]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14132]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE BOARD OF GOVERNORS


Sunshine Act Meeting: Notification of Item Added to Meeting 
Agenda

Date of meeting: June 4, 2001.

Status: Closed.

Previous Announcement: 66 FR 28764, May 24, 2001.

Addition: Postal Rate Commission Opinion and Recommended Decision in 
Docket No. MC2001-1, Experimental Presorted Priority Mail Rate 
Categories. By paper vote on May 29 and 30, 2001, the Board of 
Governors of the United States Postal Service voted unanimously to add 
this item to the agenda of its closed meeting and that no earlier 
announcement was possible. The General Counsel of the United States 
Postal Service has certified that in her opinion discussion of this 
item may be properly closed to public observation under the Government 
in the Sunshine Act.

Contact Person for More Information: David G. Hunter, Secretary of the 
Board, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 
20260-1000. Telephone (202) 268-4800.

David G. Hunter,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-14132 Filed 5-31-01; 3:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-M
Exhibit 31.2
   1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Oxford Resource Partners, LP;
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with
respect to the period covered by this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q;
 3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods
presented in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q;
 4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a.
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q is being prepared;
 b.
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q based on such evaluation; and
 c.
    
    Disclosed in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 a.
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
and
 b.
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
  By:
    /s/ JEFFREY M. GUTMANJeffrey M. GutmanSenior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and
Treasurer of Oxford Resources GP, LLC (the
general partner of Oxford Resource Partners, LP)
```

[Federal Register: May 11, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 92)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 24060-24061]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr11my01-4]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 160

RIN 3038-AB68


Privacy of Consumer Financial Information; Correction

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

ACTION: Correcting amendments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to the final regulations
which were published in the Federal Register of Friday, April 27, 2001
(66 FR 21236). The regulations related to notice requirements and
restrictions on the ability of certain financial institutions to
disclose nonpublic personal information about consumers to
nonaffiliated third parties.

DATES: Effective on June 21, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Nathan, 202-418-5120 (not a
toll-free call).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The final regulations that are the subject of this correction
require certain financial institutions to provide their consumers with
notice of their privacy policies and practices, and provide that the
financial institutions may not disclose nonpublic personal information
about a consumer to nonaffiliated third parties unless the institution
provides certain information to the consumer and the consumer has not
elected to opt out of the disclosure.

Need for Correction

    As published, the final regulations contain an error which may
prove to be misleading and needs to be clarified.

[[Page 24061]]

List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 160

    Brokers, Consumer protection, Privacy, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Accordingly, 17 CFR Part 160 is corrected by making the following
correcting amendment:

PART 160--PRIVACY OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL INFORMATION

    1. The authority citation for part 160 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: U.S.C. 7g and 8a(5); 15 U.S.C. 6801 et seq.

    2. Revise paragraph (b)(1) of Sec. 160.18 to read as follows:


Sec. 160.18  Effective Date; compliance date; transition rule.

* * * * *
    (b)(1) Notice requirement for consumers who are your customers on
the effective date. By March 31, 2002, you must have provided an
initial notice, as required by Sec. 160.4, to consumers who are your
customers on March 31, 2002.

    Dated: May 7, 2001.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 01-11861 Filed 5-10-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```
Exhibit 4.10


 


FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE


FIRST RESTATEMENT OF THE


MERIT MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC.


401(K) PROFIT SHARING PLAN AND TRUST


 


WHEREAS, Merit Medical Systems, Inc. (the “Principal
Employer”) maintains the Merit Medical Systems, Inc. 401(k) Plan and
related trust (the “Plan”) for the benefit of its employees and the employees
of its participating affiliates, which Plan was initially adopted effective January 1991;
and restated in 2001 pursuant to the First Restatement of the Merit Medical
Systems, Inc. 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan and Trust.


 


WHEREAS, the Principal Employer desires to further
amend the Plan document to reflect recent legislative changes under the
Community Renewal Tax Relief Act of 2000.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, the Principal Employer hereby amends
the Plan as follows, effective as of January 1, 2001.


 


1.                                       The second paragraph of Article I, Section 11
of the Plan, the definition of “Compensation,” is amended to add the following
sentence at the end thereof:


 


“Additionally,
for Plan Years commencing on and after January 1, 2001, Compensation shall
also include elective amounts that are not includable in the gross income of
the Employee by reason of Section 132(f)(4) of the Code.”


 


2.                                       The last paragraph of Article I, Section 46
of the Plan, the definition of “Section 415 Total Earnings,” is amended to
add the following sentence at the end thereof:


 


“Additionally,
for Limitation Years commencing on and after January 1, 2001, Section 415
Total Earnings shall also include elective amounts that are not includable in
the gross income of the Employee by reason of Section 132(f)(4) of
the Code.”


 


3.                                       Except as modified above, the First
Restatement of the Plan is hereby ratified and continued in accordance with its
original terms.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Principal Employer has
caused this First Amendment to be executed by its duly authorized officer this
16th day of April, 2002.


 


	
   

  	
  MERIT MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
      /S/

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Its: