alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Alexis DONOSO-ORTIZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES,* Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-70486.

Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 4, 2005.**

Decided April 11, 2005.

David L. Ross, Esq., Katherine Kien, Esq., Melanie M. Yang, Esq., Ross, Rose *&*Hammill, LLP, Beverly Hills, CA, for Petitioner.

CAC—District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Paul Fiorino, Esq., DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before KOZINSKI, HAWKINS, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

 Alberto R. Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

**

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

MEMORANDUM ***

Alexis Donoso-Ortiz, a native and citizen of Chile, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his motion to reopen deportation proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to former 8 U.S.C. § 1105a. *Kalaw v. INS,*133 F.3d 1147, 1149-50 (9th Cir.1997). We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. *Iturribarria v. INS,*321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.

Donoso-Ortiz filed his motion to reopen more than two years after the IJ ordered him deported, and well beyond the statutorily required 180 day period. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252b(c)(3)(A) (repealed 1996). Although we have applied equitable tolling in cases involving ineffective assistance of counsel, Donoso-Ortiz offers no explana*199tion for why he did not file the motion until over a year after he obtained new counsel. *See Iturribarria,*321 F.3d at 897, 899 (requiring due diligence, and concluding limitations period began when petitioner met with counsel and learned of prior counsel’s misconduct). Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying as untimely his motion to reopen. *See id.*at 894.

Because Donoso-Ortiz’s motion to reopen was untimely, we do not reach the merits of his ineffective assistance and due process claims.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Case 1:07-cv-03312-PAC Document 7-10 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-03312-PAC Document 7-10 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32 (2)



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002,

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the Annual Report of C-COR.net Corp. (the Company) on Form
10-K for the period ending June 27, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, William T. Hanelly, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 that, to my knowledge:



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 result of operations of the Company.



/s/    WILLIAM T.
HANELLYWilliam T. HanellyChief Financial Officer




September 12, 2003
Case 1:06-cv-15009-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15009-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 2 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15009-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 3 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15009-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 4 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15009-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 5 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15009-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 6 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15009-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 7 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15009-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 8 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15009-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 9 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15009-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 10 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15009-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 11 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15009-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 12 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15009-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 13 of 13
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1537 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1537

To ensure America's law enforcement officers have access to lifesaving 
  equipment needed to defend themselves and civilians from attacks by 
                   terrorists and violent criminals.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 16, 2019

Mr. Toomey (for himself and Mr. Rounds) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To ensure America's law enforcement officers have access to lifesaving 
  equipment needed to defend themselves and civilians from attacks by 
                   terrorists and violent criminals.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Lifesaving Gear for Police Act''.

SEC. 2. STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ACCESS TO LIFESAVING FEDERAL 
              EQUIPMENT.

    (a) Unenforceability of Certain Regulations Unless Enacted Into 
Law.--
            (1) In general.--No regulation, rule, guidance, policy, or 
        recommendations issued on or after May 15, 2015, that limits 
        the sale or donation of property of the Federal Government, 
        including excess property of the Department of Defense, to 
        State and local agencies for law enforcement activities 
        (whether pursuant to section 2576a of title 10, United States 
        Code, or any other provision of law, or as a condition on the 
        use of Federal funds), shall have any force or effect after the 
        date of the enactment of this Act unless enacted into law by 
        Congress.
            (2) Prohibition on use of funds to enforce regulations.--No 
        agency or instrumentality of the Federal Government may use any 
        Federal funds, fees, or resources to implement or carry out a 
        regulation, rule, guidance, policy, or recommendation issued as 
        described in subsection (a) that is not enacted into law by 
        Congress.
    (b) Return or Reissue of Equipment Recalled or Seized Pursuant to 
Regulations.--Any property recalled or seized on or after May 15, 2015, 
pursuant to a regulation, rule, guidance, policy, or recommendation 
issued as described in subsection (a), shall be returned, replaced, or 
re-issued to the agency from which recalled or seized, at no cost to 
such agency, as soon as practicable after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### YORK v. NEWMAN

No. 692.

Case below: 2 N.C. App. 484.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 26 November 1968.
Exhibit
32.2








KNIGHT
INC.


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 Knight Inc. (the “Company”)
for the period ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the capacity
and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





(1)The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





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








Dated:  August
      15, 2008
            
            /s/
      Kimberly A. DangKimberly
      A. Dang
              Vice
      President and Chief Financial
Officer
<PAGE>


Exhibit 23

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of
Form S-8 (Nos. 2-80041, 2-94701, 33-2517, 33-12762, 33-12763, 33-38145,
33-44693, 33-50598, 33-55092, 33-72160, 333-10553, 333-42163 and 333-75269) of
Intermagnetics General Corporation of our report dated July 16, 1999, except
as to Note E which is as of August 30, 1999 relating to the consolidated balance
sheets of Intermagnetics General Corporation and subsidiaries as of May 30, 1999
and May 31, 1998, and the related consolidated statements of operations,
shareholders' equity and comprehensive income (loss) and statements of cash
flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended May 30, 1999, and the
related schedule, which report appears in the May 30, 1999 annual report on Form
10-K of Intermagnetics General Corporation.



                                      /s/ KPMG LLP
                                      ------------------------------------------


Albany, New York
August 30, 1999
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-19-00781-CV

Ernest BUSTOS,

Appellant

v.

BEXAR APPRAISAL DISTRICT, The Appraisal Review Board of Bexar Appraisal District, 

Bexar County, North East Independent School District, and City of San Antonio,

Appellees

From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018-CI-16392

Honorable Aaron S. Haas, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARTINEZ, JUSTICE WATKINS, AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s orders granting the 

pleas to the jurisdiction filed by Bexar County, the Appraisal Review Board of Bexar Appraisal 

District, North East Independent School District, and the City of San Antonio are AFFIRMED. 

Costs of appeal are taxed against Appellant Ernest Bustos.

SIGNED May 26, 2021.

_____________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
# Soldier Accounted for from WWII (Poulter, H.)

/ Published March 21, 2024
Washington, 
The Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency (DPAA) announced today that U.S. Army Pvt. Harold O. Poulter, 23, of Charleston, Illinois, killed during World War II, was accounted for January 17, 2024.

In February 1945, Poulter was assigned to Company G, 2nd Battalion, 318th Infantry Regiment, 80th Infantry Division. His regiment was engaged in fierce fighting near the town of Biesdorf, Germany, when he was reported killed in action by small arms fire on Feb. 8. His body was unable to be recovered due to intense fighting against heavily reinforced German forces on an elevated position. Despite various recovery attempts, Pvt. Poulter’s remains were not accounted for during or after the war.

Following the end of the war, the American Graves Registration Command was tasked with investigating and recovering missing American personnel in Europe. In 1951, remains were recovered from a wooded area southeast of Biesdorf. Remnants of military clothing, an American helmet and ammunition were found, but no identification tags or personal effects were located. The remains were designated X-8517 Neuville and interred at the U.S. Military Cemetery at Tunisia, known today as the North Africa American Cemetery.

In September 2022, Department of Defense and American Battle Monuments Commission (ABMC) personnel exhumed X-8517 Neuville for forensic analysis and comparison with unresolved soldiers known to have been lost in the Biesdorf conflict area. The remains were sent to the DPAA laboratory for identification.

To identify Poulter’s remains, scientists from DPAA used anthropological analysis, as well as circumstantial evidence. Additionally, scientists from the Armed Forces Medical Examiner System used mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and Y-chromosome DNA (Y-STR) analysis.

Poulter’s name is recorded on the Walls of the Missing at Luxembourg American Cemetery, an ABMC site in Hamm, Luxembourg, along with the others still missing from World War II. A rosette will be placed next to his name to indicate he has been accounted for.

Pvt. Poulter will be buried in Lerna, Illinois, on June 4, 2024.

For family and funeral information, contact the Army Casualty Office at (800) 892-2490.

DPAA is grateful to the American Battle Monuments Commission and to the U.S. Army Regional Mortuary-Europe/Africa for their partnership in this mission.

For additional information on the Defense Department’s mission to account for Americans who went missing while serving our country, visit the DPAA website at www.dpaa.mil, find us on social media at www.facebook.com/dodpaa or https://www.linkedin.com/company/defense-pow-mia-accounting-agency.
| Steven      Helmers, Esq.    | Christopher      Reitz, Esq. |
|------------------------------|------------------------------|
| Black      Hills Corporation | Aquila,      Inc.            |
| 625      Ninth Street        | 20      West Ninth Street    |
| Rapid      City, SD 57709    | Kansas      City, MO 64105   |

|   | Re: | Partnership      Interests Purchase Agreement and Asset Purchase Agreement (collectively,      the "Agreements") by and among Aquila, Inc. ("Aquila"), Black Hills      Corporation ("Black Hills"), Great Plains Energy Incorporated ("Great      Plains") and Gregory Acquisition Corp.  ("Gregory") |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | Very      truly yours,Great      Plains Energy Incorporated                             |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |  By:      /s/ Mark G. EnglishName:      Mark G. EnglishTitle:      General Counsel |

----

| Name:  | Steven      J. Helmers |
|--------|------------------------|
| Title: | General      Counsel   |

| Name:  | Chris      Reitz |
|--------|------------------|
| Title: | General          |

| Name:  | Mark      G. English        |
|--------|-----------------------------|
| Title: | Secretary      andTreasurer |
EXHIBIT 23 A

                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 of AutoInfo, Inc. for the year ended December
31, 2001, of our report dated February 7, 2002 on the financial statements of
AutoInfo, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2001 by reference to the
Registration Statement under the Securities Act of 1933 (File No. 33-34442) of
AutoInfo, Inc.


Shelton, Connecticut                 Dworken, Hillman, LaMorte & Sterczala, P.C.
March 25, 2002
#### Hector Blademiro OJEDA-LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General,* Respondent.

No. 03-73844.

Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 23, 2005.**

Decided April 4, 2005.

*837Carlos Cruz, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Anthony W. Norwood, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before B. FLETCHER, TROTT, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 Alberto Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

**

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

MEMORANDUM***

Hector Blademiro Ojeda-Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for cancellation of removal. We review de novo due process challenges, *Iturribarria v. INS,*321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

The IJ denied Ojeda-Lopez’s application for cancellation of removal because he failed to establish that his wife, son, or stepchildren would suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship if he is removed to Mexico. We lack jurisdiction to review this discretionary determination. *See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft,*327 F.3d 887, 888 (9th Cir.2003).

We reject Ojeda-Lopez’s contention that he was deprived of due process by the IJ’s ruling that he had failed to prove that his son and stepchildren are United States citizens because he was not prejudiced by this ruling. *See Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (“To prevail on a due process challenge to [removal] proceedings, [petitioner] must show error and substantial prejudice.”) The record shows that, despite this ruling, the IJ considered all of the evidence regarding the economic and emotional hardship that Ojeda-Lopez’s wife, son, and stepchildren would suffer and found that it did not constitute the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship required for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l).

Ojeda-Lopez’s remaining contentions lack merit.

*838Pursuant to *Desta v. Ashcroft,*365 F.3d 741, 750 (9th Cir.2004), Ojeda-Lopez’s motion for stay of removal included a timely request for stay of voluntary departure. Because the stay of removal was continued based on the government’s filing of a notice of non-opposition, the voluntary departure period was also stayed, nunc pro tunc, as of the filing of the motion for stay of removal and this stay will expire upon issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

***

 xhiS disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Bridget Lynch, as Administratrix of the Estate of Patrick Lynch, Deceased, Appellant, *v.*The Board of Education of the City of New York, Respondent.

*Lynch*v. *Board of Education, N. Y. City,*172 App. Div. 906, affirmed.

(Argued June 7, 1918;

decided July 12, 1918.)

Appeal, by permission, from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered February 2, 1916, *unanimously*affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term in an action under the Employers’ Liability Act to recover for the death of plaintiff’s intestate alleged to have been occasioned through the negligence of defendant. The complaint alleged that plaintiff’s intestate was in the employ of defendant as a fireman in Public School No. 114 and that he was found dead in the' basement of the school in the vicinity of an engine. The allegation was made that, on the day in question, while intestate was “ then and there engaged in and about the performance of his work for the defendant, its agent or other employee, so carelessly, negligently and unskillfully conducted itself in and about the charge, care and management and control of the engine maintained by the defendant in the engine room of said building aforesaid, in failing to have the said engine and the appurtenances thereof properly protected and guarded, so as not to endanger the life and limb of persons lawfully at work in, upon or about the same, and by reason of the failure of* the defendant to comply with the Consolidated Laws, chapter 31 (Laws óf 1909, chap. 30, sect. 81), as amended by Laws of 1910, chapter 106, and amended by Laws of 1913, chapter 286, that through the aforesaid carelessness and negligence, the plaintiff’s intestate’s body ” was caught in the flywheel of the said engine, and he received injuries resulting in his death. These allegations are put in issue by the defendant, and it pleads, *589as an affirmative defense, that the injuries were sustained by the fault or negligence of the deceased.

*Ralph G. Barclay*and *Robert Stewart*for appellant.

*William P. Burr, Corporation Counsel (Terence Farley*and *Willard S. Allen*of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Chase, Collin, Cuddeback, Hogan and Cardozo, JJ. Not sitting: McLaughlin, J.
#### STATE v. LANG

No. 235 PC.

No. 69 (Fall Term).

Case below: 46 N.C. App. 138.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 allowed 15 July 1980. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question denied 15 July 1980.
#### SHANAHAN v. INSURANCE CO.

No. 22 PC.

Case below: 19 N.C. App. 143.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 2 October 1973.
|   | Exhibit 32(a), Form 10-Q           |
|--------|------------------------------------|
|   | Kansas City Life Insurance Company |
|        |                                    |  |

 

**KANSAS CITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY**

**SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION**

Second Quarter 2006

The undersigned certify that the registrant’s Form 10-Q report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and that information contained in the report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant. 

 

 

 

 

| /s/R. Philip Bixby |
|--------------------|

R. Philip Bixby 

President, Chief Executive Officer, 

and Chairman of the Board 

 

 

 

| /s/Tracy W. Knapp |
|-------------------|

Tracy W. Knapp 

Senior Vice President, Finance 

Date: July 31, 2006