alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Libel John Perry vs. Brign *Providence*

Being read, and Plea. Jos11 Whipple Esq1' Thos Rodman, Josh Wanton Jur and James Rogers, Merchants come into Court and Tender the sum of One Hundred and sixteen pounds with the Cost of Court to this time in full satisfaction, which the Appellant refuseth to accept. And the Court was adjourned untill to morrow at Ten o Clock A. M. And opened accordingly: And after Sundry Debates by their Advocates the Court was Adjourn’d untill further notice.

Newport June 5th 1752.

Rec4 of Thomas Vernon Regr of the Court of Vice Admiralty the sum of One Hundred and fifty nine Pounds Eleven Shillings in full for a Judgement of Court obtain’d by Jn° Perry ags* the Owners of the Brign Providence Wm Sargent Master: I say rec4 as Attorney to s4 Perry in full of s4 Parry’s Wages.

A. Johnston

Newport May 26th 1752

Court of Vice Admiralty Having heard, and fully Consider’d the within Libel with the Plea there to, and the Tender made in Court by the *547Owners of the Sa Brigantine Providence, together with all the Allegations, Amounts and Evidence of both parties, it appears to me that there remains due to the sa John Perry for the residue of his wages due on board the Sa Brigantine (after deduction made of what he receiv’d before Sailing, and of what was paid him and disburse for him during the Voyage) the sum of One hundred and Fifty nine Pounds Eleven Shillings in Bills of Publick Credit of this Colony. It is therefor Consider’d and Decreed that he the Sa John Parry recover against the Sa Brigantine Providence the afores3 Sum of one hundred and Fifty nine Pounds Eleven Shillings: And as much as the Tender made in Court was not Sufficient to pay and satisfy the it is therefore further Decree that the Sa John Parry recover also the whole Cost of this Court S Wickham D. Judge
STATE v. Pierre AMERSON

45P18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 27, 2018

G. Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender, Amanda S. Zimmer, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Amerson, Pierre.

Michael S. Beam, III, Assistant District Attorney, Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, Vernon K. Stewart, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

G. Glenn Gerding, Attorney at Law.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 15th of February 2018 by Defendant to Consider Supplemental Ex Parte Transcript and Argument Related to Emergency Petition for Writ of Certiorari:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 27th of February 2018."
Exhibit 32(a)



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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of NewMarket Corporation (the Company) for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas E. Gottwald, chief executive 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:



(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.



|    |  |                                      
|--- |  | -------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Thomas E. Gottwald               
|    |  | Thomas E. Gottwald                   
|    |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|    |  | May 4, 2005                          



40
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          13,093
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             175
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                   470
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     98,326
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          70,914
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            71,769
<LOANS>                                        248,810
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,603
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 447,594
<DEPOSITS>                                     360,552
<SHORT-TERM>                                    22,056
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             10,885
<LONG-TERM>                                     10,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,678
<OTHER-SE>                                      35,423
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 447,594
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 18,536
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                8,624
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   278
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                27,438
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              13,277
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,321
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           12,117
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      960
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 176
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  9,078
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,169
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       3,301
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,301
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.20
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.37
<LOANS-NON>                                      3,554
<LOANS-PAST>                                       225
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    73
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    841
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,001
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      441
<RECOVERIES>                                        83
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,603
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,631
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            972
        

</TABLE>
STATE v. Marcus Reymond ROBINSON

411A94-6

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 13, 2018

Robert T. Thompson, G. Robert Hicks, III, Assistant District Attorneys, William P. Hart, Sr., Senior Deputy Attorney General, Danielle Marquis Elder, Robert C. Montgomery, Jonathan Babb, Special Deputy Attorney Generals, William R. West, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Jonathan P. Babb, Special Counsel to Attorney General.

Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., Jay H. Ferguson, Kenneth J. Rose, Attorneys at Law, Durham, James E. Ferguson, II, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, D. Clark Smith, Jr., Attorney at Law, Greensboro, Donald H. Beskind, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Cassandra Stubbs, David Weiss, Attorneys at Law, for Robinson, Marcus Reymond.

Edward Joseph Blocher, Jr., Attorney at Law, for Social Scientists.

Cynthia F. Adcock, Attorney at Law, for Murder Victims' Families for Reconciliation of NC.

Janet Moore, Attorney at Law, for National Association for Public Defense.

Burton Craige, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Narendra K. Ghosh, Attorney at Law, Chapel Hill, James E. Williams, Jr., Attorney at Law, Carrboro, for N.C. Advocates for Justice.

Jeffrey Gerrish, Attorney at Law, James P. Cooney, III, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, Gregory B. Craig, Alex T. Haskell, Attorneys at Law, Washington, DC, for Former Senior U.S. Military Officials.

John R. Mills, Attorney at Law, Rochester, MN, for Experts in Law and Implicit Bias.

James E. Coleman, Jr., Attorney at Law, Dallas, TX, for Becton, Charles, et al.

Robert P. Mosteller, Attorney at Law, for Professors John Charles Boger & Robert P. Mosteller.

Grady Jessup, Attorney at Law, for N.C. Association of Black Lawyers.

Lisa A. Bakale-Wise, Attorney at Law, Irving Joyner, Attorney at Law, Durham, for N.C. State Conference of the NAACP.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 11th of July 2018 by North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 13th of July 2018."
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 19-13205

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:18-cr-20784-CMA-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JORGE GARRIDO, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(July 7, 2020)

Before MARTIN, LAGOA and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 19-13205 Date Filed: 07/07/2020 Page: 1 of 3
2

Appellant Jorge Garrido (“Garrido”) appeals the district court’s restitution 

award, included as part of his sentence for conspiracy to commit wire fraud. He 

argues on appeal that the district court erred by imposing restitution at sentencing 

without holding a restitution hearing.

I.

We normally review the legality of a restitution order de novo. United States 

v. Robertson, 493 F.3d 1322, 1330 (11th Cir. 2007). However, when a defendant 

raises a challenge to a restitution order for the first time on appeal, as Garrido does 

here, we review the district court’s order for plain error. United States v. Jones, 289 

F.3d 1260, 1265 (11th Cir. 2002). When a defendant expressly consents to or 

affirmatively seeks a district court’s decision, he is deemed to have invited any error 

the court may have made and waives appellate review. See United States v. Brannan, 

562 F.3d 1300, 1306 (11th Cir. 2009). When a defendant withdraws his objection 

and “fully comprehends the error the court is going to commit and nonetheless agrees 

[to it],” he has invited the error. United States v. Masters, 118 F.3d 1524, 1526 (11th 

Cir. 1997).

II.

Here, we decline to review Garrido’s restitution order because he invited the 

district court to enter the restitution amount at sentencing, which precludes review 

by this court of any plain error in the district court’s conduct. Garrido entered into 

Case: 19-13205 Date Filed: 07/07/2020 Page: 2 of 3
3

a joint sentencing recommendation with the government that included a restitution 

provision for the amount ordered. Hence, in effect, Garrido asked the district court 

to order the restitution amount he received. Moreover, a review of the record 

demonstrates that the district court did not plainly err in awarding the restitution 

amount because no one disputed the amount at sentencing. Accordingly, we affirm

Garrido’s sentence, including the restitution award.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 19-13205 Date Filed: 07/07/2020 Page: 3 of 3
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. JASON C AVEZZA, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-30111

D.C . No. 3:02-c r-00491-KI M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon Garr M . King, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

M ay 13, 2015 ** B e fore : LEAVY, C ALLAHAN, a nd M . SM ITH, C i rc uit Judge s. Fe de ra l prisone r Ja son C ave z z a a ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s orde r de ny ing his motion to re c onside r its April 29, 2014, orde r dire c ting theC le rk to re turn funds to C av e z z a that he ha d se nt to thec ourt with a

re que st for c opie s of c e rta in doc um e nts. W e h a ve jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm . 

# FIL ED M AY19 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).C ave z z a c onte n d s tha t the distric t c ourt should ha ve dire c t e d the C l e rk to provide him

with “ c e rtifie d ” c opie s of c e rta in doc um e nts from his c rim i na l c a se file or with a

“ c e rtifie d” le tte r stating tha t the re q ue ste d doc um e nts did not e xist. W e re vie wthe distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of the m otion for re c onside ration for a b use of disc re tion. Se eUnite d State s v . Tapia-Marque

z , 361 F.3d 535, 537 (9th C ir. 2004)
. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion be c a

use C a v e z z a ha s fa ile d to show that he is e ntitle d

to c e rtifie d c opie s of the doc um e nts or thele tte r he re que ste d. To the e xte nt tha

t C ave z z a pe titions this c ourt for a

writ of m a

nda m us, he ha s not de m onstra

te d tha t he is e ntitle d to tha

t e xtra ordina

ry re m e dy . Se e Bauman v . U.S. Dist. C ourt , 557 F.2d 650 (9th C ir. 1977). AFFIRM E D.

1 4 - 3 0 1 1 1 2
# Amtsblatt C 192A/31.

| | ISSN 1977-088X |
| --- | --- |
| Amtsblatt
  der Europäischen Union | C 192A |
| | |
| Ausgabe in deutscher Sprache | Mitteilungen und Bekanntmachungen | 59. Jahrgang31. Mai 2016 |

ISSN 1977-088X

Amtsblatt

der Europäischen Union

C 192A

Ausgabe in deutscher Sprache

Mitteilungen und Bekanntmachungen

59. Jahrgang31. Mai 2016

---

| Informationsnummer | Inhalt | Seite |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Bekanntmachungen |
| | VERWALTUNGSVERFAHREN |
| | Europäisches Amt für Personalauswahl (EPSO) |
| 2016/C 192A/01 | Reserveliste — EPSO/AD/296/15 — Juristen mit Ausbildung in deutschem Recht (DE) — Beamte der Funktionsgruppe Administration (AD 5/AD 7) mit Schwerpunkt Juristische Recherche | 1 |

Informationsnummer

Inhalt

Seite

V   Bekanntmachungen

VERWALTUNGSVERFAHREN

Europäisches Amt für Personalauswahl (EPSO)

2016/C 192A/01

Reserveliste — EPSO/AD/296/15 — Juristen mit Ausbildung in deutschem Recht (DE) — Beamte der Funktionsgruppe Administration (AD 5/AD 7) mit Schwerpunkt Juristische Recherche

1

---

| DE | |
| --- | --- |

DE

---

V Bekanntmachungen

VERWALTUNGSVERFAHREN

Europäisches Amt für Personalauswahl (EPSO)

| 31.5.2016 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | CA 192/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.5.2016

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

CA 192/1

---

RESERVELISTE (1)

EPSO/AD/296/15 — Juristen mit Ausbildung in deutschem Recht (DE)

BEAMTE DER FUNKTIONSGRUPPE ADMINISTRATION (AD 5/AD 7)

MIT SCHWERPUNKT JURISTISCHE RECHERCHE

(2016/C 192 A/01)

Administration (AD 5)

| KAUFMANN | Sven |
| --- | --- |
| KIRSTEN | Annette |
| SCHNEIDER | Jan |
| | |

KAUFMANN

Sven

KIRSTEN

Annette

SCHNEIDER

Jan

Administration (AD 7)

| KUNKLER | Bernhard |
| --- | --- |
| LANGE-TRAMONI | Claudia |
| LAUT | Thomas |
| RUNGE | Philipp |
| STRZEMECKA | Ewa |

KUNKLER

Bernhard

LANGE-TRAMONI

Claudia

LAUT

Thomas

RUNGE

Philipp

STRZEMECKA

Ewa

Die Reserveliste gilt bis zum 30. Juni 2019.

---

(1)  Auf ausdrücklichen Wunsch einer erfolgreichen Prüfungsteilnehmerin oder eines erfolgreichen Prüfungsteilnehmers wird ihr bzw. sein Name nicht veröffentlicht.

---
# Official Journal C 293A/2013

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.CA2013.293.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 293A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 569 October 2013 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.CA2013.293.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 293A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 569 October 2013

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) |
| 2013/C 293A/01 | Reserve list — Open competition EPSO/AD/238/12 (grade AD 7) — English language (EN) Conference Interpreters | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)

2013/C 293A/01

Reserve list — Open competition EPSO/AD/238/12 (grade AD 7) — English language (EN) Conference Interpreters

1

---

REVIEW OF COMPETITION C A OJs

Please find below the list of C A published during the present year.

Unless otherwise indicated, OJs are published in all language versions.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 27 | (RO) |
| 29 | |
| 33 | |
| 34 | |
| 36 | (DA) |
| 41 | (BG) |
| 43 | (EN) |
| 49 | (ET) |
| 50 | (HU) |
| 51 | (SL) |
| 54 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 58 | (EN/GA) |
| 75 | |
| 81 | |
| 82 | |
| 88 | (BG) |
| 89 | (CS) |
| 94 | |
| 104 | |
| 109 | |
| 111 | |
| 112 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 117 | (ET) |
| 118 | |
| 120 | |
| 131 | |
| 143 | |
| 160 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 162 | |
| 166 | |
| 167 | |
| 168 | |
| 172 | |
| 173 | |
| 174 | |
| 176 | (BG/DE/EN/ET/FI/IT/LT/LV/MT/NL/PL/PT/SK/SL/SV) |
| 180 | (MT) |
| 182 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 183 | (IT) |
| 191 | |
| 192 | |
| 193 | |
| 194 | |
| 196 | |
| 197 | |
| 199 | |
| 200 | |
| 204 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 210 | (LV) |
| 211 | (PL) |
| 219 | |
| 227 | |
| 231 | |
| 235 | |
| 240 | |
| 264 | |
| 269 | |
| 276 | |
| 277 | |
| 279 | (PT) |
| 286 | (ET) |
| 289 | |
| 290 | |
| 292 | (SK) |
| 293 | (EN) |

5

27

(RO)

29

33

34

36

(DA)

41

(BG)

43

(EN)

49

(ET)

50

(HU)

51

(SL)

54

(DE/EN/FR)

58

(EN/GA)

75

81

82

88

(BG)

89

(CS)

94

104

109

111

112

(DE/EN/FR)

117

(ET)

118

120

131

143

160

(DE/EN/FR)

162

166

167

168

172

173

174

176

(BG/DE/EN/ET/FI/IT/LT/LV/MT/NL/PL/PT/SK/SL/SV)

180

(MT)

182

(DE/EN/FR)

183

(IT)

191

192

193

194

196

197

199

200

204

(DE/EN/FR)

210

(LV)

211

(PL)

219

227

231

235

240

264

269

276

277

279

(PT)

286

(ET)

289

290

292

(SK)

293

(EN)

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
#### Derrick CHARLESTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D02-48.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 14, 2003.

*349Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Jamie Spivey, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, and Felicia A. Wilcox, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. *Gibson v. State,*721 So.2d 363 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).

ERVIN, BARFIELD and ALLEN, JJ., concur.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Joseph “Jody” ANTHONY.

No. 2003-K-0771.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 19, 2003.

In re Anthony, Joseph “Jody , — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 298230; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2002 KA 0906.

Denied.
Exhibit 32(b)

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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of NewMarket Corporation (the
Company) for the period ending September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David A. Fiorenza, 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:

(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.



|                             |  |                   
|---------------------------- |  | ------------------
|By:                          |  | /s/ D. A. Fiorenza
|David A. Fiorenza           
|Vice President and Treasurer
|October 30, 2008
II 

Calendar No. 78 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 45 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 20, 2013 

Received 

MAY 21, 2013 

Read the first time 

MAY 22, 2013 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 

AN ACT 

To repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

and health care-related provisions in the Health Care 

and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. 

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


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 45 PCS

1 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF PPACA AND HEALTH CARE-RE2 LATED PROVISIONS IN THE HEALTH CARE 

3 AND EDUCATION RECONCILIATION ACT OF 

4 2010. 

5 (a) PPACA.—Effective as of the enactment of the 

6 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 

7 111–148), such Act is repealed, and the provisions of law 

8 amended or repealed by such Act are restored or revived 

9 as if such Act had not been enacted. 

10 (b) HEALTH CARE-RELATED PROVISIONS IN THE

11 HEALTH CARE AND EDUCATION RECONCILIATION ACT OF

12 2010.—Effective as of the enactment of the Health Care 

13 and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Public Law 

14 111–152), title I and subtitle B of title II of such Act 

15 are repealed, and the provisions of law amended or re16 pealed by such title or subtitle, respectively, are restored 

17 or revived as if such title and subtitle had not been en18 acted. 

19 SEC. 2. BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF THIS ACT. 

20 The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of 

21 complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, 

22 shall be determined by reference to the latest statement 

23 titled ‘‘Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation’’ for this 

24 Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional Record 

25 by the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 45 PCS

1 House of Representatives, as long as such statement has 

2 been submitted prior to the vote on passage of this Act. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 16, 2013. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 78 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 45 

AN ACT 

To repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable 

Act of 2010. the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Care Act and health care-related provisions in 

MAY 22, 2013 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT SOK POR , Pe titioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 11-73173 Age n c y No. A027-746-307 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 15, 2013 ** B e fore : SILVERM AN, B EA, a nd NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s. Sok Por, a

native and c itiz e n of C am bodia , pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s’ (“ B IA” ) orde r de ny ing his mo tion to re ope n ba s e d on ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e of c ounse l. W e hav e jurisdic tion under 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e 

# FIL ED JAN 16 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).re vie w for a

buse of disc re t ion thede nia l of a m otion to re o pe n, Av agy an v . Holde r , 646 F.3d 672, 674 (9th C ir. 2011), a n d we de ny

the pe tition for re vie w . The B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion in deny ing Por’ s m otion to re ope n a s untim e l y be c a use the m otion wa s file d m ore tha n e ight y e ars a fte r the B IA’ s fina l orde r of re m ova l , se e 8 C .F.R . § 1003.2(c )(2), an d Por fa ile d to e sta blish thedue dilige n c e re quire d for e quita ble tolling of the

filing de a dline , se eAv a

gy a n , 646 F.3d at 678-80 (e quita

ble tolling is a

va ila ble to a pe titione r who e sta blishe s tha

t he suffe re d from

de c e ption, fra

ud or e rror, an d e xe rc ise d due dilige nc e in disc ove ring suc h c i rc um sta

nc e s). In light of our disposition, we ne e d not re a c h Por’ s re m a ining c onte ntions. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 1 - 7 3 1 7 3 2