alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 23
  CONSENT
    OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
  No. 333-70085, 333-88038, 333-115990, 333-118559 333-164348 Form S-3 No. 333-68755, 333-69385, 333-84187, 333-91347, 333-92437, 333-32448, 333-37918, 333-39184, 333-42498, 333-42728, 333-48224, 333-48262, 333-44094, 333-54646, 333-54672, 333-68724, 333-70420, 333-73858, 333-86838, 333-86868, 333-97539, 333-111211, 333-113395, 333-113596, 333-113399, 333-113595, 333-115983, 333-121284, 333-121285, 333-121286, 333-123356, 333-129676, 333-129679, 333-130209, 333-139546, 33-139547, 333-139548, 333-149038, 333-149039 333-149043 Form S-8 Form 10-K
  DELOITTE &
    TOUCHE LLP
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

MIGUEL ANDRES LARA-UNZUETA, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 20-10077 

D.C. No. 

2:19-cr-00552-MTL-1 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Michael T. Liburdi, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 13, 2021**

San Francisco, California

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and R. NELSON and HUNSAKER, Circuit 

Judges.

Appellant Miguel Andres Lara-Unzueta appeals the district court’s denial of 

his motion to dismiss his indictment for illegal reentry. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

APR 15 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

(b)(2).1 Lara-Unzueta argues that his underlying 1998 removal order was invalid 

because the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) erroneously rejected his request for a 

§ 212(c) hearing for discretionary relief. See INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 326 

(2001), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 

S. Ct. 1683 (2020). But Lara-Unzueta has not demonstrated that the deportation 

proceedings “improperly deprived [him] of the opportunity for judicial review.” 8 

U.S.C. § 1326(d)(2). Thus, he cannot collaterally attack the underlying 1998 

removal order.

To satisfy 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d)(2), a defendant “must show an actual or 

constructive inability to seek judicial review, related to an alleged error or obstacle 

in the deportation proceedings.” United States v. Gonzalez-Villalobos, 724 F.3d 

1125, 1133 (9th Cir. 2013). On appeal, however, Lara-Unzueta argues only that 

(1) the IJ erred; (2) the record as to his § 212(c) eligibility had not been developed 

because of the error; and (3) he did not understand the requirements for a § 1326 

collateral attack at the time of his 1998 removal. None of these arguments 

demonstrate Lara-Unzueta was actually or constructively “foreclose[d]” from 

challenging the IJ’s decision not to hold a § 212(c) hearing. See United States v. 

Mendoza-Lopez, 481 U.S. 828, 838 (1987), adopted by statute as stated in United 

1 We review de novo the denial of a motion to dismiss based on 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1326(d). United States v. Garcia-Martinez, 228 F.3d 956, 960 (9th Cir. 2000)

(citation omitted).
3 

States v. Gonzalez-Flores, 804 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2015). Lara-Unzueta did, in fact, 

appeal the IJ’s § 212(c) determination to the Board of Immigration Appeals and 

could have sought judicial review of the Board’s decision affirming LaraUnzueta’s ineligibility for statutorily relief.

Without the requisite showing under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d)(2), Lara-Unzueta 

cannot collaterally attack his 1998 removal order.2

AFFIRMED.

2 Because we conclude Lara-Unzueta has not made the requisite showing under 8 

U.S.C. § 1326(d)(2), we need not address the other arguments presented on appeal.
#### Morris Lamprey *vs.*Gustav Munch & another.

March 27, 1875.

Cross-examination as to Execution of a Note. — Under an issue as to tlie execution of a promissory note, when a witness for the plaintiff has sworn to the execution, he may he cross-examined as to all the circumtances connected with it,— among other circumstances, as to the consideration for the note, — and the defendant may contradict his account of such consideration.

Appeal by defendant Munch from an order of the district court for Eamsey county, *Wilkin,*J., presiding, refusing a new trial.

*H. J. Horn,*for appellant.

*Morris Lamprey,*for respondent.

Gileillan, C. J.

The complaint in this case is in the usual form, alleging that Munch, for value received, made and delivered his promissory note to Garrison, and that, Garrison indorsed it to plaintiff before maturity, etc. Munch answered, denying the execution of the note, and that he ever received *380any consideration for it, and denies knowledge or information as to the indorsement. On these pleadings, the only issues were as to the execution and the indorsement of the note. Want of consideration, as an affirmative defence, is not sufficiently pleaded; and this view of the case, we think, has led the court below into error in excluding testimony offered by defendant. Plaintiff examined Garrison to prove the execution of the note, and he swore that Munch filled and signed the note, and handed it to him. On cross-examination, he was asked what was the consideration for the note, and stated what it was. Munch, being sworn for himself,'was asked by his counsel if Garrison’s statement as to the consideration was true, and this, being objected to, was excluded by the court.

When a witness has sworn to the execution of a note, he may be cross-examined as to every circumstance connected with the execution, including the alleged consideration, and, to impeach his testimony as to the fact of execution, the defendant may contradict him as to every such circumstance sworn to by him. The enquiry in such a case is not as to collateral matters, but goes direct to his version of the transaction.

The order denying a new trial is reversed.
**Exhibit 31.1**

**Hill International, Inc.**

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer**

I, Irvin E. Richter, Chief Executive Officer of Hill International, Inc., certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Hill International, Inc.; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this reportdoes 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 coveredby this report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

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 thatmaterial 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 report is being prepared; 

b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures; and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

c. Disclosed in this report 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 anannual 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 registrant’s boardof directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation 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 controlover reporting. 

 

Dated: November 13, 2007
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-7315

DAMIEN O. JOHNSON,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN, Livesay Correctional Institution,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Orangeburg. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. (5:15-cv-02059-MBS)

Submitted: February 20, 2018 Decided: March 13, 2018

Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Damien O. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Alphonso Simon, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, 

Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Damien O. Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s orders accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge, dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition

and denying his motion to reconsider. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable 

jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on 

procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a 

constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Johnson has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the President's Cancer Panel, October 24, 2005, 8 a.m. to October 24, 2005, 5 p.m., Hotel Washington, Pennsylvania Ave at 15th Street, NW., Washington, DC, 20004 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on September 27, 2005, 70 FR 56477.                

This meeting is amended to change the end time of the open session from 5 p.m. to 4 p.m. on October 24, 2005 and the date and time of the closed session from 1 p.m.-4 p.m. on October 25, 2005 to 4:15 p.m.-6:15 p.m. on  October 24, 2005. The meeting is partially Closed to the public.

Dated: October 5, 2005.

Anthony M. Coelho, Jr.,

Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 05-20742  Filed 10-17-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
<PAGE>

                                                                Exhibit 10.2


                            ANGELICA CORPORATION
                       FORM 10-K FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDED
                              JANUARY 26, 2002

                                  SCHEDULE
                                  --------


The participation agreements presently in effect under the Angelica
Corporation Management Retention and Incentive Plan are substantially
identical in all material respects. This revised schedule is included
pursuant to Instruction 2 of Item 601(a) of Regulation S-K for the purpose
of setting forth the material details in which the specific agreements
differ from the form of agreement filed as Exhibit 10.3 to the Angelica
Corporation Form 10-K for fiscal year ended 1/30/93:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                             "Benefit Multiple"
Name                       Title                          Pursuant to Paragraph 3
----                       -----                          -----------------------

<S>                        <C>                                     <C>
T. M. Armstrong            Sr. Vice President-Finance              2.99
                           and Administration

Charles D. Molloy, Jr.     Vice President                          2.00
</TABLE>
#### STATE ex rel. Chadwick TATE v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2002-KH-1994.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 5, 2003.

In re Tate, Chadwick;—Plaintiff; , Parish .of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 12-92-660; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2001 KW 2695.

Denied.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk June 28, 2010

s0621 

# Order

June 28, 2010

140789

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 140789 COA: 290603 Ionia CC: 2008-014149-FH BRADLEY SCOTT LASCO, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e February 18, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.
#### STATE of Louisiana in the Interest of D.J.

No. 2003-CK-1990.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 15, 2003.

In re D.J.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Orleans Parish Juvenile Court, No. 00-298-01-QB; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2003-C-1252.

Denied on the showing made. Issue may be re-raised.
<PAGE>

                    Trustee's Distribution Statement


THE               THE HOLDERS OF:
BANK OF           Prudential Securities Structured Assets, Inc.
NEW               Receipts on Corporate Securities, Series NSC 1998-1
YORK

In accordance with Article IV, Section 4.2 of the Base Trust Agreement
dated as of August 28, 1997, The Bank of New York, as Trustee, submits
the following cash basis statement for the period ending
February 1, 1999.

With regard to the February 1, 1999 Distribution Date:

The amount of principal distribution is $806,393.44 and interest
is $1,912,356.56.

The aggregate stated principal amount of the Term Assets
are $75,000,000.00 at 7.25%.

The aggregate Certificate Principal Balance is $58,035,346.97.

Underlying Securities held as of February 1, 1999.

Principal Amount         Title of Security
$75,000,000.00           BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE
                         CORPORATION ("BNSF")
                         $75,000,000 Aggregate Principal Amount of
                         7.25% Debentures Due August 1, 2097


                                   THE BANK OF NEW YORK,
                                   as Trustee

<PAGE>

                    Trustee's Distribution Statement

THE               TO THE HOLDERS OF:
BANK OF           Prudential Securities Structured Assets, Inc.
NEW               Receipts on Corporate Securities, Series BNSF 1998-1
YORK

In accordance with Article IV, Section 4.2 of the Base Trust Agreement
dated as of August 28, 1997, The Bank of New York, as Trustee, submits
the following cash basis statement for the period ending
August 1, 1999.

With regard to the August 1, 1999 Distribution Date:

The amount of principal distribution is $832,601.22 and interest is
$1,886,148.78.

The aggregate stated principal amount of the Term Assets are
$75,000,000.00 at 7.25%.

The aggregate Certificate Principal Balance is $57,202,745.75.


Underlying Securities held as of August 1, 1999.

Principal Amount         Title of Security
$75,000,000.00           BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE
                         CORPORATION ("BNSF")
                         $75,000,000 Aggregate Principal Amount of
                         7.25% Debentures Due August 1, 2097


                                   THE BANK OF NEW YORK,
                                   as Trustee
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 205 (Tuesday, October 25, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61641-61642]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21220]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Announcement of a National Park Subsistence Resource Commission 
(SRC) Meeting for Gates of the Arctic National Park

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

SUMMARY: The National Park Service (NPS) announces an SRC meeting 
within the Alaska Region for Gates of the Arctic National Park. The 
purpose of the meeting is to develop and continue work on subsistence 
hunting program recommendations and other related subsistence 
management issues. This meeting is open to the public and will have 
time allocated for public testimony. The public is welcomed to present 
written or oral comments to the SRC. The NPS SRC program is authorized 
under Title VIII, Section 808, of the Alaska National Interest Lands 
Conservation Act, Public Law 96-487, to operate in accordance with the 
provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Meeting minutes will 
be available for public inspection approximately six weeks after the 
meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be held from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Wednesday, 
November 9, 2005, and 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Thursday, November 10, 2005.
    Location: The meeting will be held at the Sophie's Station Hotel in 
Fairbanks, Alaska, 99709, Tel (907) 479-3650.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dave Mills, Superintendent, and Fred 
Andersen, Subsistence Coordinator, Gates of the Arctic National Park 
and Preserve, 201 First Avenue, Fairbanks, AK 99701, telephone (907) 
457-5752.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SRC meeting location and dates may need to 
be changed based on weather or local circumstances. Notice of SRC 
meetings will be published in local newspapers and announced on local 
radio stations prior to the meeting dates. The agendas for each meeting 
include the following:

1. Call to order (SRC Chair).

[[Page 61642]]

2. SRC Roll Call and Confirmation of Quorum.
3. SRC Chair and Superintendent's Welcome and Introductions.
4. Review and Approve Agenda.
5. Review and adopt minutes from last meeting.
6. Status of SRC Membership--Election of Chair and Vice Chair.
7. Commission Member Reports.
8. Superintendent and NPS Staff Reports.
9. Federal Subsistence Board Update.
10. New Business.
11. Agency and Public Comments.
12. SRC Work Session. Prepare correspondence and hunting program 
recommendations.
13. Set time and place of next SRC meeting.
14. Adjournment.

Marcia Blaszak,
Regional Director.
[FR Doc. 05-21220 Filed 10-24-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-HK-P
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4985 

To repeal the provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

providing for the Independent Payment Advisory Board. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 25, 2010 

Mr. ROE of Tennessee (for himself, Mr. POSEY, Mr. FLEMING, Mr. 

LUETKEMEYER, Mr. WAMP, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. OLSON, Mrs. 

MCMORRIS RODGERS, Mr. CHAFFETZ, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. GRIFFITH, 

Mrs. LUMMIS, Mr. SHADEGG, Mr. LINDER, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. TIAHRT, 

Mr. JONES, Mr. SOUDER, Mr. HALL of Texas, Mrs. BACHMANN, Mr. 

MICA, Ms. FALLIN, Mr. PENCE, Mr. BURGESS, Mr. KING of Iowa, Mr. 

COFFMAN of Colorado, Mr. SCHOCK, Mr. ROONEY, Mr. THOMPSON of 

Pennsylvania, and Mr. PAUL) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the 

Committees on Rules and Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of 

such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To repeal the provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act providing for the Independent Payment Advisory Board. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Medicare Decisions 

5 Accountability Act of 2010’’. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4985 IH

1 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF THE INDEPENDENT PAYMENT ADVI2 SORY BOARD. 

3 Effective as of the enactment of the Patient Protec4 tion and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111–148), sec5 tions 3403 and 10320 of such Act (including the amend6 ments made by such sections) are repealed, and any provi7 sion of law amended by such sections is hereby restored 

8 as if such sections had not been enacted into law. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS