alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 25, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32856-32857]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16090]



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


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Notice of Intent to Repatriate a Cultural Item in the Possession 
of the Modoc National Forest, United States Forest Service, Alturas, CA

AGENCY: National Park Service

ACTION: Notice

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

    Notice is hereby given under the Native American Graves Protection 
and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3005 (a)(2), of the intent to 
repatriate a cultural item in the possession of the United States 
Forest Service which meets the definition of ``sacred object'' under 
Section 2 of the Act.
    The cultural item is a volcanic stone pipe with incised lines at 
one end. There is burnt residue coating the interior of the pipe.
    In 1985, this pipe was removed from the surface in the vicinity of 
Goose Creek in the Warner Mountains during a legally-authorized 
archeological survey.
    The area from which the pipe was removed is well within the 
ethnographic territory of the Gidutikadu Band of the Northern Paiute, 
now part of the Ft. Bidwell Indian Community of California. Evidence 
presented by representatives of the Ft. Bidwell Indian Community 
indicate this pipe was used for certain religious ceremonies and rites 
held by the Northern Paiute people, and is needed to continue the 
practice of traditional Paiute religion by present-day adherents.
    Based on the above-mentioned information, officials of the United 
States Forest Service have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 
(3)(C), this cultural item is a specific ceremonial object needed by 
traditional Native American religious leaders for the practice of 
traditional Native American religions by their present-day adherents.  
Officials of the United States Forest Service have also determined 
that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (2), there is a relationship of shared 
group identity which can be reasonably traced between these items and 
the Ft. Bidwell Indian Community.
    This notice has been sent to officials of the Ft. Bidwell Indian 
Community. Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes 
itself to be culturally affiliated with these objects should contact 
Diane Henderson-Bramlette, Forest Supervisor, Modoc National Forest, 
United States Forest Service, 800 W. 12th Street, Alturas, CA 96101, 
telephone (916) 233-5811 before July 25, 1996. Repatriation of these 
objects to the Ft. Bidwell Indian Community may

[[Page 32857]]

begin after that date if no additional claimants come forward.
Dated: June 19, 1996.
Francis P. McManamon,
Departmental Consulting Archeologist,
Chief, Archeology and Ethnography Program.
[FR Doc. 96-16090 Filed 6-24-96 ; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-F
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 7017

WALTER W. WALLACE, IV , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; MICHAEL CARVAJAL; THOMAS SCARANTINO; DR. TAMARA S. LYN; RICHARD ENGEL; OFFICER BOWERS , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. James C. Dever III , District Judge. ( 5:21

- ct

- 03035

- D )

Submitted : March 15, 2022 Decided: April 6, 2022

Before WILKINSON, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Walter W. Wallace, IV , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-7017 Doc: 16 Filed: 04/06/2022 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM:
Walter W. Wallace , IV , appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his complaint filed pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b)(1), 2671

- 2680 , and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed eral Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S.
388 (1971). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm the district court’s order. Wallace v. U.S. Dep’t of Just. , No. 5:21

- ct

- 03035

- D (E.D.N.C. June 2 4, 2021). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and leg al contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 21-7017 Doc: 16 Filed: 04/06/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The Honorable Richard F. Cebull, United States District Judge for the

District of Montana, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

INSITU INC,

 Plaintiff-counter-defendant -

Appellee,

 v.

MARK KENT,

 Defendant-counter-claimant -

Appellant.

No. 09-35737

D.C. No. 2:08-cv-03067-EFS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Washington

Edward F. Shea, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted July 15, 2010

Seattle, Washington

Before: RYMER and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and CEBULL, Chief District

Judge.** 

FILED

JUL 21 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
-2-

Mark Kent appeals the summary judgment for Insitu, Inc. on his claims of

fraudulent misrepresentation and promissory estoppel. We have jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Kent’s case, and this appeal, turn on whether there is a triable issue of fact

that he reasonably relied on misrepresentations that Insitu concedes, for purposes

of the summary judgment, were made. As the district court concluded, he could

not show reasonable reliance – an element of each cause of action, Sigman v.

Stevens-Norton, Inc., 425 P.2d 891, 920 (Wash. 1967) (fraudulent

misrepresentation); Jones v. Best, 950 P.2d 1, 5 (Wash. 1998) (promissory

estoppel) – given the “no-reliance” clause in the Separation and Release

Agreement, and that he was a sophisticated businessman, was represented by

counsel, had an adversarial relationship with the company, and was allowed

twenty-one days to consider whether to sign the Agreement as well as a week

thereafter to revoke his acceptance. See Kwiatkowski v. Drews, 176 P.3d 510, 517

(Wash. Ct. App. 2008); Stewart v. Estate of Steiner, 93 P.3d 919, 927 (Wash. Ct.

App. 2004); cf. Helenius v. Chelius, 120 P.3d 954, 964 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005).

We decline Kent’s invitation for certification to the Washington Supreme

Court. Making such a request for the first time on appeal is disfavored, Thompson

v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1065 (9th Cir. 2008), and in any event, we are sufficiently
-3-

guided by decisions of the Washington appellate courts. See Ryman v. Sears,

Roebuck & Co., 505 F.3d 993, 994 (9th Cir. 2007). 

AFFIRMED.
Cytec Compensation Taxation Equalization Plan



 Exhibit 10.2(l) 
 CYTEC INDUSTRIES INC. 
 COMPENSATION TAXATION EQUALIZATION PLAN 
 (as restated effective January 1, 2009) 
  

	1.	If an Excess Tax is imposed on any person who is, or was at the time, an employee, officer or director of Cytec Industries Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Corporation”)
or of any subsidiary of the Corporation, then the Corporation (or such subsidiary), shall pay as additional compensation to such person a Tax Equalization Amount on the first day of the seventh month following such person’s Separation from
Service. However, in no event shall the payment be made, or commence, later than the fifteenth day of the third calendar month following the date on which such person has been Separated from Service for six months. Separation from Service occurs on
the date that such person dies, retires, or otherwise has a termination of employment with the Corporation (within the meaning of Treasury Regulation Section 1.409A-1). For purposes of this Plan, (a) “Excess Tax” shall mean the
tax which is imposed by Section 4999 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or by any corresponding provision of any subsequent Internal Revenue Code, as the same may be amended from time to time, by reason of any payment or benefit which such
person has received from, or under any plan of, the Corporation (or subsidiary of the Corporation); and (b) the “Tax Equalization Amount” shall be an amount which, after taking into account all taxes (including any Excess Tax) imposed
upon such amount by any federal, state or local government, is equal to the amount of the tax imposed by Section 4999. 

  

	2.	If any payment to which paragraph 1 of this Plan applies is subject to withholding, then the additional payment in respect of the withholding shall be made at the time of the
withholding. If the tax is imposed other than by, or in addition to, withholding, then the additional payment shall be made at the time the tax is payable and for such purpose the person shall make available to the Corporation such information as
the Corporation may require in order to determine the amount of tax which will be imposed. 

  

	3.	The Corporation reserves the right to amend or terminate this Plan at any time, provided, that no such amendment or termination shall adversely affect the right of any person to
receive any amount under this Plan who becomes subject to the tax imposed by Section 4999 in whole or in part by reason of any change in the ownership or effective control of the Corporation occurring prior to the date of such amendment or
termination. 

 *    *    * 
  

							
	 /s/ ROY SMITH
	 		 		 	 12/15/2008

	ROY SMITH	 		 		 	DATE
				
	 /s/ MARILYN R. CHARLES
	 		 		 	 12/15/2008

	MARILYN R. CHARLES	 		 		 	DATE
#### BI-STATE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, Appellant, v. DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, Respondent. Fred Moore, Defendant.

No. WD 52241.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Oct. 8, 1996.

Teresa Dale Pupillo, St. Louis, for appellant.

Ninion S. Riley, Div. of Employment Security, Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before HANNA, P.J., and SMART and EDWIN H. SMITH, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Employer appeals reinstatement of unemployment benefits to claimant whose benefits were terminated for misconduct connected with work, § 288.050.2, RSMo 1994. Affirmed. Rule 84.16.
September 15, 2015



### JUDGMENT


## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

RICHARD OHENDALSKI , Appellant

NO. 14

- 15

- 00475

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appe llee

________________________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. The record indicates that the appeal should be DISMISSED. The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion.

We further orde r appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ALLEN DANIEL,

Plaintiff,

v.

LORI PAIONTE, ET AL.,

Defendants.

/

Case Number: 5:08-CV-14075

HON. JOHN CORBETT O’MEARA

ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Plaintiff Allen Daniel filed a pro se civil rights complaint. Plaintiff, who is a state

prisoner, failed to pay the filing fee for a civil action, $350, or to file the required papers to

proceed in forma pauperis, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). The Court, therefore, issued an Order to

Correct Deficiency (Deficiency Order), on September 30, 2008. 

The Deficiency Order required Plaintiff to submit the $350.00 filing fee or, alternatively,

file an Application for Prisoner to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs, Certification

Regarding Trust Fund Account, a current Certification/Business Manager’s Account Statement,

and a statement of Trust Fund Account activity (or institutional equivalent) for the six-month

period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint. The Deficiency Order provided that, if

Plaintiff did not submit the requested information within thirty days from the date of the Order,

the complaint would be dismissed. The time for submitting the required information has elapsed

and Plaintiff has failed to correct the deficiency. 
2

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE. 

s/John Corbett O’Meara

United States District Judge

Date: November 7, 2008

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties of record on

this date, November 7, 2008, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/William Barkholz

Case Manager
Administrative Office of the United States Courts FOR COURT USE ONLY

TRANSCRIPT ORDER

DUE DATE:

2AO 435

AZ Form (Rev. )

1. NAME 2. PHONE NUMBER 3. DATE

4. FIRM NAME

5. MAILING ADDRESS 6. CITY 7. STATE 8. ZIP CODE

9. CASE NUMBER 10. JUDGE DATES OF PROCEEDINGS

11. 12. 

13. CASE NAME LOCATION OF PROCEEDINGS

14. 15. STATE

16. ORDER FOR

APPEAL CRIMINAL

NON-APPEAL CIVIL

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT

IN FORMA PAUPERIS

BANKRUPTCY

OTHER 6SHFLI\

17. TRANSCRIPT REQUESTED (Specify portion(s) and date(s) of proceeding(s) for which transcript is requested)

PORTIONS DATE(S) PORTION(S) DATE(S)

TESTIMONY (6SHFLI\

PRE-TRIAL PROCEEDING

OTHER (6SHFLI\)

VOIR DIRE

OPENING STATEMENT (Plaintiff)

OPENING STATEMENT (Defendant)

CLOSING ARGUMENT (Plaintiff)

CLOSING ARGUMENT (Defendant)

OPINION OF COURT

JURY INSTRUCTIONS

SENTENCING

BAIL HEARING

18. ORDER

CATEGORY

ORIGINAL + 1

(original to Court,

copy to ordering party)

FIRST

COPY

# OF

ADDITIONAL

COPIES

DELIVERY INSTRUCTIONS

(&heck all that apply) ESTIMATED COSTS

30 DAYS  

PAPER COPY

3')HPDLO

$6&,,HPDLO

14 DAYS  

7 DAYSH[SHGLWHG  

DAILY

 

HOURLY

 

REALTIME

 

E-MAIL ADDRESS

NOTE: IF ORDERING 025(7+$121()250$7,

THERE WILL BE AN ADDITIONAL CHARGE. 19. SIGNATURE

20. DATE

TRANSCRIPT TO BE PREPARED BY

ESTIMATE TOTAL

PROCESSED BY PHONE NUMBER

ORDER RECEIVED DATE BY

DEPOSIT PAID DEPOSIT PAID

TRANSCRIPT ORDERED TOTAL CHARGES

TRANSCRIPT RECEIVED LESS DEPOSIT

ORDERING PARTY NOTIFIED

TO PICK UP TRANSCRIPT

TOTAL REFUNDED

PARTY RECEIVED TRANSCRIPT TOTAL DUE

DISTRIBUTION: COURT COPY TRANSCRIPTION COPY ORDER RECEIPT ORDER COPY

'$<6

CERTIFICATION (19. & 20.)By signing below, I certify that I will pay all charges

(deposit plus additional).

Ashley Taylor 202-616-2948 08/24/2023

U.S. Department of Justice, Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section

1301 New York Ave. NW Suite 1100 Washington DC 20530

2:18cr422 Judge Humetewa 8/29/2023 to 11/09/2023

US v. Lacey et al. Phoenix Arizona

✔

✔

entirety of trial proceedings

✔

✔ rough drafts

Austin.Berry2@usdoj.gov; peter.kozinets@usdoj.gov

/s/ Ashley Taylor

08/24/2023

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1721 Filed 08/24/23 Page 1 of 1
### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-41034 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. JULIAN HERNANDEZ A VELINO, a lso k now n a s Humberto Manuel Hernandez, Defendant-Appellant

A ppeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:11-CR-97-1
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appealing the judgment in a c rimi n a l case, J ulian Hernandez Avelino raises an a rgument that he concedes is foreclosed by U n ited States v. Newson , 515 F.3d 374, 3 78-79 ( 5th Cir. 2008), which held that t h e Government m ay decline to move for an additional one-point reduction u nder U.S.S.G. § 3 E1.1(b) based on the defendant’s refusal to waive his right to appeal. Accordingly, the Government ’ s motion for summary affirmance is G RANTED, its alternative U n i t e d S t a te s C o u r t o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Aug ust 20, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-41034 Document: 00512346712 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/20/2013No. 12-41034

motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 12-41034 Document: 00512346712 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/20/2013
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 2009-2 Filed 12/04/23 Page 1 of 6
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 2009-2 Filed 12/04/23 Page 2 of 6
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 2009-2 Filed 12/04/23 Page 3 of 6
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 2009-2 Filed 12/04/23 Page 4 of 6
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 2009-2 Filed 12/04/23 Page 5 of 6
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 2009-2 Filed 12/04/23 Page 6 of 6
----

EXHIBIT 32.2 

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report ofOpencell Biomed Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10]QSB for the quarter ending May 31, 2010 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, MislavPavelic, in my capacities set forth below of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes]Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge: 

(1) 

The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and 
(2) 

The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company. 

July 15, 2010
/s/ Mislav Pavelic                                 
 
Mislav Pavelic, President
 
(as Principal Financial Officer)
Exhibit 32.2

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 of China Multimedia, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended March 31, 2007 (the "Report"), I, Wilson Cheung, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, 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 requirement 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 Company's
> financial position and results of operations.

/s/Wilson Cheung



Wilson Cheung, Chief Financial Officer

September 12, 2007
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with this Report on Form 10-Q for the six months ended March 31, 2011 (the Report) of
PennantPark Investment Corporation (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Aviv Efrat, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:



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



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



|              
|--------------
|/s/ Aviv Efrat
|Aviv Efrat    
|May 4, 2011
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with this Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended December 31, 2007 (the Report) of PennantPark Investment Corporation. (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Arthur H. Penn, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:



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



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



|                  
|------------------
|/s/ Arthur H. Penn
|Arthur H. Penn    
|February 8, 2008
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T J OSE ALB ER TO RAM I RE Z B ENI TE Z, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 09- 73240 A ge nc yN o. A 027- 702- 700 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r13, 2010 ** B efo re: S IL V E R M A N , C A L L A H A N , an dN . R . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. J os e A lbe rt o R am i r e z B e ni t e z , ana t i ve and c i t i z e n of E l S a l va dor , pe t i t i ons pro se f or re vi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ order di sm i ss i ng hi s app ea l fr om an i m m i grat i on j ud ge’ s dec i si on denyi ng hi s m ot i on t o reopen rem ov al p r o c e e d i n g s c o n du c t e di n ab s e n t i a . O u rj u r i s d i c t i o n i s g o v e rn e db y8 U . S. C. 

# FI LED SEP 29 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 73240 2 § 1252. W e r e vi e w f

orabus e of

di s c r e t i on the de ni a l of am ot i on t o r e ope n, I tu rr i b a rr i a v . I

NS , 321 F . 3d 889, 894 ( 9th C i r . 2003) , and w e de nyi n partand d i s m i s s i n p artth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. T he a ge nc ydi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng R am i r e z B e ni t e z ’ s m ot i on t o reopen as unt i m el y w here R am i re z B eni t ez fi l ed the m ot i on al m ostsi x years a f te rth e in ab s e n tiao r d e r , se e 8 C . F . R . § 1 00 3. 23 (b)( 4)(i i ), and R am i re z B eni t ez di d n otes t abl i sh thathe w as ent i t l ed t o equ i t abl e t ol l i ng of the 18 0-day deadl i ne, s e e I tu rr ib a rr ia , 3 2 1 F .3 da t 8 9 7 ( e qu itab le to llin g av a ilab le to ap e titio n e rw h o is prevent ed fr om fi l i ng du e t o d ec ept i on , fr aud o r e rr or, and exerci se s due di l i gence i n d i sc ov er i ng such ci rc um st ance s) . W e l a c k j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w the a ge nc y ’ s de c i s i on nott o i nvoke i t s s ua s p o n te au th o r ityto r e o p e n p r o c e e d in g s . Se e Eki m i a n v . I NS , 303 F . 3d 1153, 1159 (9th C i r. 20 02 ). P E T IT IO N F O R R E V IE W D E N IE D i n p art; D IS M IS S E D i n p art.