alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BHUPENDRA KESHAVLAL AMIN, AKA Amin Bhupendra Keshavlal, AKA Amin Bobender Keshavlal,

Petitioner,

v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 14

- 71003 Agency No. A070

- 935

- 011

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 14, 2016 **

Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Bhupendra Keshavlal Amin, a native and citizen of India, seeks review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision denying his untimely second
motion to reopen. We have j urisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

* 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

JUN 21 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 14

- 71003

abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo
claims of due process violations in removal proceedings, including claims of

ineffective assistance of counsel. Mohammed v. Gonzales , 400 F.3d 785, 791

- 92
(9th Cir. 2005). We review for substantial evidence findings of fact regarding
counsel’s performance. Lin v. Ashcroft , 377 F.3d 1014, 102 4 (9th Cir. 2004).
We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Amin’s s econd motion to
reopen as untimely because the motion was filed more than ninety days after the
final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and the BIA reasonably

determined that he failed to establish c hanged circumstances in India to qualify for
an exception to the time lim itations for a motion to reopen , s ee 8 C.F.R. §
1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Najmabadi v. Holder , 597 F.3d 983, 989

- 90 (9th Cir.
2010).
The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in denying Amin’s motion to
reopen because he failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel so as to
warrant equitable tolling of the time and numerical limitations on his motion to

reopen. See Singh v. Gonzales , 491 F.3d 1090, 1095

- 96 (9th Cir. 2007). We
reject Amin’s contention that the BIA violated his due process rights. See Lata v.3 14

- 71003

INA , 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due
process claim).
We decline Amin’s req uest to remand to the BIA for administrative closure
in light of Matter of Avetisyan, 25 I. & N. Dec. 688 (BIA 2012), or for
prosecutorial discretion , because he did not request th ese before the agency. We
deny as moot Amin’s request for voluntary departure.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1780

For the relief of Raul Morales-Torna.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 25, 1999

Mr. HOLLINGS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

For the relief of Raul Morales-Torna.

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENCE.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi5 sion of law, for purposes of the Immigration and Nation6 ality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Raul Morales-Torna

7 shall be held and considered to have been lawfully admit8 ted to the United States for permanent residence as of

9 the date of the enactment of this Act upon payment of

10 the required visa fee.

11 (b) REDUCTION OF NUMBER OF AVAILABLE

12 VISAS.—Upon the granting of permanent residence to
2

•S 1780 IS

1 Raul Morales-Torna as provided in subsection (a), the

2 Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to re3 duce by one number during the current fiscal year the

4 total number of immigrant visas available to natives of the

5 country of the alien’s birth under section 203(a) of the

6 Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)).

7 SEC. 2. WAIVER OF GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL OF RAUL MO8 RALES-TORNA.

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi10 sion of law, Raul Morales-Torna may not be removed from

11 the United States by reason of any act of his that is a

12 ground for removal and is reflected in the records of the

13 Immigration and Naturalization Service of the Depart14 ment of Justice on the date of the enactment of this Act.

15 (b) RESCISSION OF OUTSTANDING ORDER OF RE16 MOVAL OR DEPORTATION.—The Attorney General shall

17 rescind any outstanding order of removal or deportation,

18 or any finding of deportability or removability, that has

19 been entered against Raul Morales-Torna by reason of any

20 act described in subsection (a).

21 (c) ESTABLISHMENT OF GOOD MORAL CHAR22 ACTER.—Notwithstanding section 101(f) of the Immigra23 tion and Nationality Act, any act described in subsection

24 (a) may not be considered in determining whether Raul

25 Morales-Torna is, or during any period has been, a person
3

•S 1780 IS

1 of good moral character for purposes of the Immigration

2 and Nationality Act.

Æ
2009 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

9-9-2009

Donlin v. Philips Lighting

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential

Docket No. 07-4060

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2009 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Donlin v. Philips Lighting" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 551.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/551
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

 

No. 07-4060

No. 07-4081

 

COLLEEN DONLIN,

 Appellee,

 v.

PHILIPS LIGHTING NORTH AMERICA

CORPORATION

d/b/a

Philips Lighting Company,

 Appellant. 

 

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. No. 05-cv-00585)

District Judge: Honorable Richard P. Conaboy

____________

Present: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, FUENTES and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges.

 

SUR PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING

__________

The judges who participated in the decision of this Court having considered the

petition for rehearing filed by Philips Lighting North America Corporation in the aboveentitled case, panel rehearing is hereby GRANTED for the reasons stated. The

precedential opinion and judgment filed on April 23, 2009 are hereby VACATED and the

attached opinion is filed forthwith. 

By the Court,

/s/ Thomas M. Hardiman

Circuit Judge
2

Dated: September 9, 2009

tmm/cc: Jacqueline E. Bedard, Esq.

 Theodore R. Laputka, Esq.

 David Fine, Esq.

 Stephen D. Rhoades, Esq. 

 Amy L. Groff, Esq.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 88 (Friday, May 7, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 25281]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-10873]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for 
Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, May 28, 2010, 12 p.m. to May 
28, 2010, 2:30 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge 
Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the Federal Register 
on April 28, 2010, 75 FR 22412.
    The meeting has been changed to an Internet assisted meeting. The 
meeting time has been changed to 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. The meeting location 
remains the same. The meeting is closed to the public.

    Dated: April 29, 2010.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-10873 Filed 5-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Annual Report of Metalline Mining Company (the “Company”)on Form 10-KSB for the period ended October 31, 2004, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, MerlinD. Bingham, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

1.             The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended; and

 

2.             The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition, and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Merlin  D. Bingham     |   |
|----------------------------|--------|
| President                  |
|                       |
|                       |
| Dated:  September 15, 2005 |

 

E-4

----
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-50304 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus RICHARD THOMAS GARY, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC Nos. A-93-CR-161 and A-97-CR-137

-------------------- April 13, 2000 Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Richard Thomas Gary (“Gary”) has appealed the district court’s judgment sentencing him following: (1) the revocation of the supervised release term imposed for his conviction for making a false statement to influence the action of a bank and (2) his guilty-plea conviction for theft of mail. Because Gary’s brief fails to assert an argument challenging the sentence imposed following the revocation of the supervisedNo. 99-50304 -2- release term in his false statement case, Gary’s appeal of that sentence has been abandoned. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A); Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). With regard to his sentence for theft of mail, Gary asserts that the district court failed to adequately explain its reasons for upwardly departing from the applicable sentencing guideline range and that the extent of the upward departure was unreasonable. A district court’s decision to depart from the sentencing guidelines is generally reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Ashburn , 38 F.3d 803, 807 (5th Cir. 1994)(en banc). However, since Gary failed to raise his present arguments below, review is for plain error. See United States v. Alford , 142 F.3d 825, 830 (5th Cir. 1998). The district court based its upward departure on the grounds that Gary’s criminal history category did not adequately reflect the seriousness of Gary’s past criminal conduct or the likelihood that Gary would commit other crimes. The district court’s reasons for departure were acceptable and adequately explained.
See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3; United States v. Chappell , 6 F.3d 1095, 1102 (5th Cir. 1993) ; Ashburn , 38 F.3d at 809. Furthermore, the extent of the upward departure, from a maximum guideline sentence of 21 months’ imprisonment to 36 months’ imprisonment, was reasonable. See id. at 805-06; United States v. Rosogie , 21 F.3d 632, 634 (5th Cir. 1994); United States v. Lambert , 984 F.2d 658, 664 (5th Cir. 1993). In light of the foregoing, the district court did not err, plainly or otherwise, in upwardly departing from the applicableNo. 99-50304 -3- guideline range. Ashburn , 38 F.3d at 807. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
---

Exhibit 99.9







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 Annual Report of Minera Andes Inc. (the Corporation) on Form 40-F for the twelve month period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Allen V. Ambrose, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of 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 results of operations of the Corporation.





|      |                |  |                   |                                      
|----- | -------------- |  | ----------------- | -------------------------------------
|      |                |  | MINERA ANDES INC.
|      |                |  |                   |                                      
|      |                |  |                   |                                      
|Date: | March 31, 2009 |  | By:               | /s/  Allen V. Ambrose                
|      |                |  |                   | Allen V. Ambrose                     
|      |                |  |                   | President and Chief Executive Officer







A signed original of this written statement required by Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 has been provided to Minera Andes, Inc. and will be retained by Minera Andes, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



This certification accompanies the Form 40-F to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Registrant under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of the Form 40-F), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.



---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0409

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

KATHERINE ANNE PROCTOR,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including January 17, 2024, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 11 2023

12/11/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0409
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

To the Board of Trustees of
Pioneer Tax-Free Income Fund:

In planning and  performing  our audit of the  financial  statements  of Pioneer
Tax-Free  Income Fund for the year ended  December 31, 1999, we  considered  its
internal control,  including control activities for safeguarding securities,  in
order to determine our auditing  procedures  for the purpose of  expressing  our
opinion on the financial  statements and to comply with the requirements of Form
N-SAR, not to provide assurance on internal control.

The management of Pioneer  Tax-Free Income Fund is responsible for  establishing
and maintaining internal control. In fulfilling this  responsibility,  estimates
and  judgments by  management  are required to assess the expected  benefits and
related  costs of controls.  Generally,  controls  that are relevant to an audit
pertain to the entity's objective of preparing financial statements for external
purposes  that are  fairly  presented  in  conformity  with  generally  accepted
accounting principles. Those controls include the safeguarding of assets against
unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition.

Because of inherent  limitations in internal  control,  error or fraud may occur
and not be detected.  Also,  projection of any evaluation of internal control to
future periods is subject to the risk that it may become  inadequate  because of
changes in conditions or that the  effectiveness of the design and operation may
deteriorate.

Our consideration of internal control would not necessarily disclose all matters
in  internal   control  that  might  be  material   weaknesses  under  standards
established  by the  American  Institute  of  Certified  Public  Accountants.  A
material weakness is a condition in which the design or operation of one or more
of the internal control components does not reduce to a relatively low level the
risk  that  misstatements  caused  by error or fraud in  amounts  that  would be
material in relation to the financial statements being audited may occur and not
be  detected  within a timely  period  by  employees  in the  normal  course  of
performing  their assigned  functions.  However,  we noted no matters  involving
internal  control  and  its  operation,   including  controls  for  safeguarding
securities,  that we consider to be material  weaknesses  as defined above as of
December 31, 1999.

This report is intended solely for the  information  and use of management,  the
Board of  Trustees of Pioneer  Tax-Free  Income  Fund,  and the  Securities  and
Exchange Commission.


ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
/s/ Arthur Andersen LLP


Boston, Massachusetts
February 4, 2000
# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

November 9, 2017



### Before

F RANK H. E ASTERBROOK , Circuit Judge

M ICHAEL S. K ANNE , Circuit Judge

I LANA D IAMOND R OVNER , Circuit Judge

No. 16

- 3658

A NTHONY D. K OLTON and S. D AVID G OLDBERG , Plaintiffs

- Appellants
,

v.

M ICHAEL W. F RERICHS , Treasurer of Illinois
, Defendant

- Appellee

. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
, Eastern Division.

No. 16 C 3792 Charles P. Kocoras
, Judge

.

Order

The opinion of this court issued on August 22, 2017, is amended as follows:

Page 6, “See Muscarello v. Ogle Board of Commissioners , 510 F.3d 416, 422 (7th Cir. 2012).” should be “See Muscarello v. Ogle Board of Commissioners , 610 F.3d 416, 422 (7th Cir. 2010).”

.
**Exhibit
      32.1**







**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 Southern Union Company
      (the
“Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, George L.
      Lindemann, Chairman of the Board, President and 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 to my knowledge (i) the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d) **** of
      the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (ii) the information contained
      in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
      and results of operations of the Company.









/s/
      GEORGE L. LINDEMANN


George
      L.
      Lindemann


Chairman
      of the Board, President and


Chief
      Executive Officer


May
      10,
      2007









This
      Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002, and shall not be deemed “filed” by the Company for purposes of Section 18
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and shall not be
      incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities
      Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
      whether made before or after the date of this Report, irrespective of any
      general incorporation language contained in such filing.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other documents
      authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
      Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
      upon request.
(June 2, 1910.)

#### STATE, Appellant, v. CAMBRIDGE CLUB, Respondent. STATE, Appellant, v. FRED ROE, Respondent. STATE, Appellant, v. JOHN HENDELL, Respondent. STATE, Appellant, v. CLARA MANSON, Respondent.

[109 Pac. 726.]

SULLIVAN, C. J.

Each of the above-entitled actions involves precisely the same question involved in the' case of *State v. Wall, ante,*p. 300, 109 Pac. 724, decided at this term of court, and it is stipulated by respective counsel that the decision of said cases should follow the decision in said Wall case. Upon the authority of the Wall ease the judgments of the district court in said cases are reversed and the causes remanded for further proceedings. Costs are awarded to the appellant.

Ailshie, J., concurs.
Exhibit 15.(a).1








CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements Nos. 333-11848 and 333-138200 on Form F-3 of our report dated April 29, 2012 (except for Note 23, as to which the date is August 29, 2012), relating to the financial statements of G. Willi-Food International Ltd. appearing in this Annual Report on Form 20-F/A of G. Willi-Food International Ltd. for the year ended December 31, 2011.


Brightman Almagor Zohar & Co.


A Member of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu


Tel-Aviv, Israel


August 30, 2012
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.


# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
KEVIN LACY, Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERA NS AFFAIRS, Respondent

______________________

2014

- 3163

______________________

Petition for review of an arbitrator's decisio n in No. FMCS#121028

- 50691 -1.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

T HOMAS J. G AGLIARDO
, The Gagliardo Law Firm, Ba ltimore, MD, argued for petitioner.

S ONIA M ARIE O RFIELD , Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Branch, United States Department of Justice, Was hington, DC, argued for respondent. Also represented by
B ENJAMIN C. M IZER
, R OBERT E. K IRSCHMAN
, J R
., R EGINALD T. B LADES
, J R

.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it isO RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (N EWMAN
, C LEVENGER
, and O’M ALLEY
, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

October 16, 2015 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Date Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk of Court