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

No. 04-70650, A70-70650.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*862Submitted April 4, 2005.**

Decided April 11, 2005.

J. Jack Artz, Esq., Artz *&*Associates, Monterey Park, 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, Virginia Lum, Anthony W. Norwood, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before KOZINSKI, HAWKINS, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The court sua sponte changes the docket to reflect that Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General, is the proper respondent. The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect the above caption.

**

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

MEMORANDUM ***

Lidia Carmona-Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”) dismissal of her appeal of an immigration judge’s denial of her application for adjustment of status. We dismiss the petition for review.

Because this deportation proceeding was initiated before April 1, 1997, and the Board issued its decisions after October 30, 1996, this case is governed by the transitional rules of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. *Magana-Pizano v. INS,*200 F.3d 603, 607 (9th Cir.1999). Our jurisdiction is limited to determining whether Carmona-Ramirez was inadmissible by reason of her 1985 controlled substance conviction. *See*8 U.S.C. § U82(a)(2)(A)(i)(II); *Magana-Pizano,*200 F.3d at 607. We review de novo the Board’s interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act. *Ramirez-Castro v. INS,*287 F.3d 1172, 1174 (9th Cir.2002).

Carmona-Ramirez contends that the ex-pungement of her conviction for possession for sale of heroin pursuant to California Penal Code section 1203.4 eliminates the immigration consequences of that offense. We rejected this contention in *Ramirez-Castro v. INS,*287 F.3d 1172, 1175 (9th Cir.2002). For immigration purposes, Carmona-Ramirez stands convicted of a *863controlled substance violation. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction over this petition for review. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II).

To the extent Carmona-Ramirez attempts to collaterally attack her conviction, she cannot do so here. *See Ortega de Robles v. INS,*58 F.3d 1355, 1358 (9th Cir.1995) (“Criminal convictions cannot be collaterally attacked in deportation proceedings”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Case 1:06-cv-15022-AKH Document 13 Filed 09/04/2008 Page 1 of 2Case 1:06-cv-15022-AKH Document 13 Filed 09/04/2008 Page 2 of 2
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

D.R., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,

Grand Rapids, MI, Employer

_________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-1247

Issued: November 29, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

On August 17, 2021 appellant through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a July 7, 2021

merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the 

Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 21-1247.

By letter dated November 1, 2021, counsel requested that the appeal be dismissed.

The Board has duly considered the matter and concludes that counsel’s request for the 

dismissal of the appeal should be granted. Accordingly, 

1

In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no claim for a fee for legal 

or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). 

No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board. Id. An attorney or 

representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, subject to fine or 

imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of fees to a 

representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation.
2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT appellant’s request for the dismissal of the appeal is 

granted. The appeal docketed as No. 21-1247 is dismissed.

Issued: November 29, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
#### CARPENTER v. CARPENTER

No. 100 PC.

Case below: 25 N.C. App. 235.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 6 June 1975.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-K FOR
THE YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRITY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         259,494
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,831,493
<ALLOWANCES>                                    41,096
<INVENTORY>                                    419,866
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,473,995
<PP&E>                                       6,015,956
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,802,467
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,687,484
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,432,850
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        61,674
<OTHER-SE>                                 (3,025,535)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,687,484
<SALES>                                      3,734,706
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,734,706
<CGS>                                        1,645,985
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,474,163
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           (2,669,013)<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             385,458
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,898,113
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,898,113
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,898,113
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .62
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .62
<FN>
<F1>INCLUDES GAIN FROM SALE OF ASSET OF $3,027,551, LOSS FROM AFFILIATE OF $385,000
AND FOREIGN CURRENCY GAIN OF $26,462.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE v. ELLIOTT

No. 129 PC.

Case below: 9 N.C. App. 1.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 28 August 1970.
Case 1:06-cv-14997-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14997-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 2 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14997-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 3 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14997-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 4 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14997-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 5 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14997-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 6 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14997-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 7 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14997-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 8 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14997-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 9 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14997-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 10 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14997-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 11 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14997-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 12 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14997-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 13 of 13
APPENDIX
 EMULEX CORPORATION
AMENDED AND RESTATED 2005 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN
 RESTRICTED STOCK AWARD AGREEMENT,
RESTRICTED STOCK UNIT AWARD AGREEMENT,
NONQUALIFIED STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT, AND
INCENTIVE STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT
FOR
CHANGE IN CONTROL RETENTION PLAN PARTICIPANTS
OR
EMPLOYEES COVERED BY A KEY EMPLOYEE RETENTION AGREEMENT
 Plan Retention Plan KERA RSA
Agreement RSU Agreement NQSO Agreement ISO Agreement
 ADDENDUM TO RESTRICTED STOCK AWARD AGREEMENT
 1.
    
    Vesting. This provision supplements Section 3 of Grantees RSA Agreement by
adding the following provisions at the end thereof:
    2.
    
    No Right to Continued Service. The last sentence of Section 6 of Grantees RSA
Agreement is amended in its entirety to read as follows.




---



##### 



ADDENDUM TO RESTRICTED STOCK UNIT AWARD AGREEMENT
 Vesting
    ADDENDUM TO NONQUALIFIED STOCK OPTION AWARD AGREEMENT
  Term and Vesting of Stock Option under Change in Control Retention Plan or Key Employee
Retention Agreement
   Acceleration of Vesting
   2




---



##### 



Extension of Exercise Period
 ADDENDUM TO INCENTIVE STOCK OPTION AWARD AGREEMENT
  Term and Vesting of Stock Option under Change in Control Retention Plan or Key Employee
Retention Agreement
   Acceleration of Vesting
 Exercise Period
 3
#### WILLIAMS AND ASSOCIATES v. PRODUCTS CORP.

No. 15 PC.

Case below: 19 N.C. App. 1.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 2 October 1973.
### The HONORABLE DONALD D. ALSOP, United States District Judg e

for the District of Minnesota. ___________ No. 95-2457

___________ Bart Albert Sanquist, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. United States of America, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: May 22, 1996 Filed: May 28, 1996

___________ Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.

After aut horities found marijuana plants drying in a locked shed on Bart Albert Sanquist's property, he pleaded guil ty to possessing more than one hundred marijuana plants with intent to dist ribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B). Sanquist's plea agreement stipulate d that h e knowingly possessed "approximately 330 marijuana plants." Th e district c ourt imposed the sixty-month mandatory minimum prison sentence 1 for a violation involving "100 or more marijuana plants, " § 8 41(b)(1)(B)(vii), rejecting defense counsel's contention that thi s penalt yshould not apply because Sanquist had merely picked marijuan a plants growing wild along a country road. Sanqu ist did not appeal, but he later b rought this 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence. Th e district court denied the motion, and Sanquist appeals. Having

### -2-

reviewed the denial de novo, see Holloway v. Uni ted States , 960 F.2d 1348, 1351 (8th Cir. 1992), we affirm.
Although Sanquist raises numerous issues, we conclude that the appeal turns on his contention that the mandatory minimum sentence was improperly imposed because there was no evidence that he ha d grown the drying plants. The statute applies to offenses "involving . . . plants," language tha t pla inlyencompasses the harvesting as well as the growing components o f agricultural production. See United States v. Haynes , 969 F.2d 569 (7th Cir. 1 992). Sanquist stipulated that he possessed "approximately 33 0 mariju ana plants," thereby conforming his plea agreement to the plai n language of § 841(b)(1)(B)(vii). In these circumstances, the sentencing court was clearly correct in imposing the mandatory minimum five-yea r sentence. That being so, Sanquist's claim that trial counsel rendere d ineffective assistance by failing to argue at sentencing that the plants
were not alive when seized, and his additional claim under 18 U.S.C
. § 35 82(c)(2) that the sentence should be reduced because of a recen t amendment to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c), see U.S.S.G. App. C at 417 (Amend. No. 516), af ford him no basis for postconviction relief. See U.S.S.G
. § 5G1.1(b).

Accord ingly, we affirm. Sanquist's motions for appointment o f
couns el and for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) ar e denied.
A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Theodore V. H. Mayer (TM 9748)

ViliaB. Hayes (VH 4601)

RobbW. Patryk(RP0161)

HUGHES HUBBARD & REED LLP

One Battery Park Plaza

New York, NY 10004-1482

(212)837-6000

Attorneys for Defendant Merck & Co., Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

PELLUMB KULLA and XHULJETA KULLA,

LAURA BETH WATCHERS,

Plaintiffs,

-againstMERCK & CO., INC.,

Defendant.

No.: 07 cv 3333 (UA)

Rule 7.1 Statement

Pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and to enable

judges and magistrate judges of the court to evaluate possible disqualification or recusal,

the undersigned attorneys of record for Defendant Merck & Co., Inc. certify that it has no

parent companies and is not aware of any beneficial owner of more than ten percent of its

Common Stock.

Case 1:07-cv-03333-KMK Document 3 Filed 05/07/2007 Page 1 of 2
Dated: New York, New York

May 3_, 2007

Respectfully submitted,

HUGHES HUBBARD & REED LLP

By:

Theodore V. H. Mayo/flM 9748)

ViliaB. Hayes (VH 4601)

RobbW. Patryk(RP0161)

One Battery Park Plaza

New York, New York 10004-1482

(212)837-6000

Attorneys for Defendant Merck & Co., Inc.

Case 1:07-cv-03333-KMK Document 3 Filed 05/07/2007 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUL-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 AUG-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUL-31-1997
<CASH>                                         536
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 536
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          9,397
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       878
<OTHER-SE>                                     (9,739)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   536
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               18,238
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (19,238)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (18,238)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                337,218
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   318,980
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.37
        

</TABLE>
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.                  

###### Commodity Futures Trading Commission

      ( print page 69746)    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 05-22882  Filed 11-15-05; 12:20 pm]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
#### WALKER v. INSURANCE CO.

No. 65

Case below: 47 NC App 375

Petition by plaintiffs for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 15 August 1980. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 15 August 1980.
EXHIBIT 23A


            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

      We consent to the  incorporation  in the Annual  Report on Form 10-K under
the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934 of  AutoInfo,  Inc.  for the  year  ended
December  31,  2006,  of our report  dated  February  26, 2007 on the  financial
statements of AutoInfo,  Inc. for the year ended  December 31, 2006 by reference
to the  Registration  Statement  under  the  Securities  Act of 1933  (File  No.
33-34442) of AutoInfo, Inc.

                                 /s/ Dworken, Hillman, LaMorte & Sterczala, P.C.
                                 -----------------------------------------------
Shelton, Connecticut                Dworken, Hillman, LaMorte & Sterczala, P.C.
March 27, 2007
Exhibit 12
<TABLE>
                    KANSAS GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
          Computations of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                        (Dollars in Thousands)
<CAPTION>

                                     Unaudited
                                      Twelve
                                      Months
                                      Ended
                                     June 30,                     Year Ended December 31,
                                       1999        1998        1997        1996        1995        1994
<S>                                  <C>         <C>         <C>         <C>         <C>         <C>
Net Income. . . . . . . . . . . . .  $ 79,818    $103,765    $ 52,128    $ 96,274    $110,873    $104,526
Taxes on Income . . . . . . . . . .    37,443      44,971      17,408      36,258      51,787      55,349
     Net Income Plus Taxes. . . . .   117,261     148,736      69,536     132,532     162,660     159,875

Fixed Charges:
  Interest on Long-Term Debt. . . .    45,900      45,990      46,062      46,304      47,073      47,827
  Interest on Other Indebtedness. .     3,644       3,368       4,388      11,758       5,190       5,183
  Interest on Corporate-owned
    Life Insurance Borrowings . . .    31,570      32,368      31,253      27,636      25,357      20,990
  Interest Applicable to Rentals. .    24,815      25,106      25,143      25,539      25,375      25,096
      Total Fixed Charges . . . . .   105,929     106,832     106,846     111,237     102,995      99,096

Earnings (1). . . . . . . . . . . .  $223,190    $255,568    $176,382    $243,769    $265,655    $258,971

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges.      2.11        2.39        1.65        2.19        2.58        2.61





     (1)  Earnings are deemed to consist of net income to which has been added income taxes (including net
     deferred investment  tax  credit)  and  fixed  charges.  Fixed charges consist of all interest on
     indebtedness, amortization of debt discount and expense, and the portion of rental expense which
     represents an interest factor.
</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.2



              CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 Nos.2-85000, 33-14641, 33-29850, 33-30417 and 33-62170) and related
Prospectuses pertaining to various stock option plans of our report dated
January 15, 1997, with respect to the financial statements of IMC-Agrico
Company (not presented separately herein) included in the Annual Report
(Form 10-K) of Freeport-McMoRan Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1996.


                                              /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
                                              ----------------------
                                                 ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Chicago, Illinois
  March 28, 1997
Case 1:06-cv-14916-AKH Document 5 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5438 

To amend title 23, United States Code, to direct the Administrator of the 

Environmental Protection Agency to publish annually a list of vehicles 

that satisfy requirements for certification as a low emission and energyefficient vehicle, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 27, 2010 

Mr. DONNELLY of Indiana (for himself and Mr. MCCOTTER) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend title 23, United States Code, to direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to publish annually a list of vehicles that satisfy requirements 

for certification as a low emission and energy-efficient 

vehicle, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Municipal Fleet Mod5 ernization Act of 2010’’. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5438 IH

1 SEC. 2. LIST OF LOW EMISSION AND ENERGY-EFFICIENT 

2 VEHICLES. 

3 Section 166 of title 23, United States Code, is 

4 amended— 

5 (1) by redesignating subsection (f) as sub6 section (g); and 

7 (2) by inserting after subsection (e) the fol8 lowing: 

9 ‘‘(f) LIST OF LOW EMISSION AND ENERGY-EFFI10 CIENT VEHICLES.—Not later than 90 days after the date 

11 of enactment of the Municipal Fleet Modernization Act of 

12 2010, and annually thereafter, the Administrator of the 

13 Environmental Protection Agency shall update and pub14 lish in the Federal Register a list of vehicles that satisfy 

15 requirements for certification as a low emission and en16 ergy-efficient vehicle.’’. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS