alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
B.4. Delinquent Real Estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks

Share of outstanding farm real estate

Volume (billions of dollars) loans (percent)

Nonperforming Nonperforming 

Past due Past due

30 to 89 Past due 30 to 89 Past due

days, 90 days, Non- days, 90 days, NonPeriod Total accruing Total accruing accruing Total accuring Total accruing accruing

1998...... .8 .3 .5 .2 .3 2.9 1.2 1.7 .8 1.0

1999...... .6 .2 .4 .2 .2 2.0 .8 1.3 .5 .7

2000...... .8 .3 .5 .2 .3 2.3 .9 1.4 .6 .8

2001...... .9 .4 .5 .1 .4 2.6 1.1 1.5 .3 1.2

2002...... .9 .4 .6 .1 .5 2.5 1.0 1.5 .3 1.2

2003...... .8 .3 .5 .1 .4 2.1 .7 1.3 .2 1.1

2004...... .7 .3 .4 .1 .4 1.6 .6 1.0 .2 .8

2005...... .6 .3 .4 .1 .3 1.3 .6 .7 .1 .6

2006...... .7 .3 .3 .1 .3 1.3 .6 .7 .1 .5

2007...... .8 .4 .4 .1 .3 1.4 .7 .7 .1 .5

2008...... 1.3 .6 .7 .1 .6 2.1 1.0 1.2 .2 1.0

1999: Q4... .6 .2 .4 .2 .2 2.0 .8 1.3 .5 .7

2000: Q1... 1.0 .4 .6 .3 .3 3.2 1.3 1.9 .9 1.0

 Q2... .9 .3 .6 .3 .3 2.7 1.0 1.7 .7 1.0

 Q3... .7 .2 .5 .2 .3 2.1 .7 1.4 .6 .8

 Q4... .8 .3 .5 .2 .3 2.3 .9 1.4 .6 .8

2001: Q1... 1.1 .6 .5 .1 .4 3.2 1.7 1.4 .4 1.1

 Q2... .9 .4 .6 .1 .4 2.7 1.0 1.7 .4 1.2

 Q3... .9 .3 .6 .1 .4 2.5 .9 1.7 .4 1.3

 Q4... .9 .4 .5 .1 .4 2.6 1.1 1.5 .3 1.2

2002: Q1... 1.2 .6 .6 .2 .4 3.3 1.6 1.7 .5 1.2

 Q2... 1.0 .4 .6 .2 .4 2.6 1.0 1.6 .4 1.1

 Q3... .9 .3 .6 .1 .5 2.4 .9 1.6 .4 1.2

 Q4... .9 .4 .6 .1 .5 2.5 1.0 1.5 .3 1.2

2003: Q1... 1.2 .6 .6 .1 .5 3.2 1.6 1.6 .4 1.2

 Q2... 1.0 .4 .7 .2 .5 2.6 .9 1.6 .4 1.2

 Q3... .9 .3 .6 .1 .5 2.3 .7 1.5 .3 1.2

 Q4... .8 .3 .5 .1 .4 2.1 .7 1.3 .2 1.1

2004: Q1... 1.0 .4 .6 .1 .4 2.5 1.1 1.4 .3 1.1

 Q2... .8 .3 .5 .1 .4 1.9 .7 1.2 .3 .9

 Q3... .7 .2 .5 .1 .4 1.7 .6 1.1 .2 .9

 Q4... .7 .3 .4 .1 .4 1.6 .6 1.0 .2 .8

2005: Q1... .9 .4 .5 .1 .4 2.0 1.0 1.0 .2 .8

 Q2... .7 .3 .5 .1 .4 1.6 .6 1.0 .2 .8

 Q3... .7 .3 .4 .1 .3 1.4 .5 .9 .2 .7

 Q4... .6 .3 .4 .1 .3 1.3 .6 .7 .1 .6

2006: Q1... .9 .5 .4 .1 .3 1.8 .9 .9 .2 .6

 Q2... .7 .3 .4 .1 .3 1.4 .6 .8 .2 .6

 Q3... .7 .3 .4 .1 .3 1.3 .6 .8 .2 .6

 Q4... .7 .3 .3 .1 .3 1.3 .6 .7 .1 .5

2007: Q1... .9 .5 .4 .1 .3 1.6 .9 .7 .2 .5

 Q2... .8 .4 .4 .1 .3 1.5 .7 .8 .2 .6

 Q3... .7 .3 .4 .1 .3 1.3 .6 .7 .2 .5

 Q4... .8 .4 .4 .1 .3 1.4 .7 .7 .1 .5

2008: Q1... 1.0 .5 .5 .1 .3 1.7 .9 .8 .2 .6

 Q2... 1.0 .5 .5 .1 .4 1.6 .8 .9 .2 .7

 Q3... 1.0 .4 .6 .1 .5 1.6 .6 1.0 .1 .8

 Q4... 1.3 .6 .7 .1 .6 2.1 1.0 1.2 .2 1.0

 Note. Yearly data are as of December 31. Quarterly data are as of end of quarter.

24
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Joseph Hannify

v. Civil No. 08-cv-268-SM

NH State Prison, Warden

O R D E R

The court finds that the petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of

a constitutional right, and therefore declines to issue a certificate of appealabilty. See 28 U.S.C.§

2253(c)(2); Rule 11, Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section 2254; First Cir. LR 22.0.

SO ORDERED.

May 26, 2010 _________________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Joseph Hannify

Elizabeth C. Woodcock, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00268-SM Document 26 Filed 05/26/10 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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 EFJ, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Michael E. Jalbert, Chief Executive Officer and President 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 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 Company as of the dates and for the
periods expressed in the Report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/S/ Michael E. JalbertMichael E. JalbertChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)


May 1, 2007

A signed original 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.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1869 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1869

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to require an employer to 
notify the parent or guardian of an employee who is under the age of 18 
or handicapped and who works at the same facility as an individual who 
    has a criminal record that includes a conviction for a crime of 
                               violence.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 16, 2001

  Mr. Frost introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to require an employer to 
notify the parent or guardian of an employee who is under the age of 18 
or handicapped and who works at the same facility as an individual who 
    has a criminal record that includes a conviction for a crime of 
                               violence.

    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 ``Amy Robinson Memorial Act''.

SEC. 2. NOTICE TO PARENT OR GUARDIAN THAT MINOR OR HANDICAPPED EMPLOYEE 
              WORKS WITH INDIVIDUAL WITH A RECORD OF A CRIME OF 
              VIOLENCE.

    Section 14 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 214) 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(e)(1) The Secretary shall by regulation require that an employer 
provide prompt written notice to the parent or guardian of an employee 
if--
            ``(A)(i) the employee has not attained eighteen years of 
        age or is employed under a special certificate issued under 
        subsection (c) for earning or productive capacity impaired by 
        physical or mental deficiency, or injury; or
            ``(ii) the employer knows or reasonably should know that 
        the earning or productive capacity of the employee is impaired 
        by physical or mental deficiency, or injury;
            ``(B) another individual who has a criminal record that 
        includes a conviction for a crime of violence (as defined in 
        section 16 of title 18, United States Code) performs work at 
        the same facility as the employee; and
            ``(C) the employer--
                    ``(i) employs the other individual; or
                    ``(ii) knows or reasonably should know of the 
                conviction.
    ``(2) The notice under paragraph (1) shall contain an 
identification of the facility, a statement that an individual who has 
been convicted of a crime of violence performs work at the facility, 
and an identification of each such crime of violence.''.
                                 <all>
```
Case 1:08-cv-00428-PB Document 1-8 Filed 10/20/08 Page 1 of 1
107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2199

AN ACT

To amend the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 to permit any Federal

law enforcement agency to enter into a cooperative agreement with the Metropolitan Police Department of the

District of Columbia to assist the Department in carrying out crime prevention and law enforcement activities

in the District of Columbia if deemed appropriate by

the Chief of the Department and the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, and for other purposes.
2

•HR 2199 EH

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 ‘‘District of Columbia

5 Police Coordination Amendment Act of 2001’’.

6 SEC. 2. PERMITTING ADDITIONAL FEDERAL LAW ENFORCE7 MENT AGENCIES TO ENTER INTO COOPERA8 TIVE AGREEMENTS WITH METROPOLITAN

9 POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF

10 COLUMBIA.

11 Section 11712(d) of the National Capital Revitaliza12 tion and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 (D.C.

13 Code, sec. 4–192(d)) is amended by adding at the end the

14 following:

15 ‘‘(33) Any other law enforcement agency of the

16 Federal government that the Chief of the Metropoli17 tan Police Department and the United States Attor18 ney for the District of Columbia deem appropriate to

19 enter into an agreement pursuant to this section.’’.

Passed the House of Representatives September 25,

2001.

Attest:

Clerk.
107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2199

AN ACT

To amend the National Capital Revitalization and

Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 topermit any Federal law enforcement agency toenter into a cooperative agreement with the Metropolitan Police Department of the District ofColumbia to assist the Department in carryingout crime prevention and law enforcement activities in the District of Columbia if deemed appropriate by the Chief of the Department and theUnited States Attorney for the District of Columbia, and for other purposes.
#### Hardy J. OWENS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division B.

April 7, 1954.

Worley, Kehóe & Willard, Miami, for appellant.

' Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and Bart L. Cohen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

. In this cause the State concedes that reversible error occurred in the trial so the judgment is reversed with directions to discharge the appellant unless there are other charges pending against him.

Reversed.

ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, HOB-SON and DREW, JJ., concur.'
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Christopher Palermo

v. Civil No. 08-cv-87-JD

Rockingham County Department of

Corrections, Superintendent, et al.

O R D E R

I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Muirhead dated December 2, 2008, no objection having been filed.

SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr. 

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

Date: December 29, 2008

cc: Christopher Palermo, pro se

Brian J.S. Cullen, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00087-JD Document 22 Filed 12/29/08 Page 1 of 1
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

AMO Enterprises, Inc.,

Appellant

,

v.

Ramon Perez

Appellee

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 7

- 00 002

- C V

Appeal from the

327 th District Court

of El Paso C ounty, Texas

(TC# 2014DCV0855 )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant’s secon d motion for extension of time within which to

file the brief until March 1 0 , 201 7

. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

TO F ILE THE APPELLANT ’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Alan N. Magenheim

, attorney for Appellant ’s

,

prepare the brief for Appellant ’s and forward the same to this Court on or before March 10

,

2017

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 22 nd day of February , 20 1 7

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure , C.J., R odriguez and Palafox , JJ.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     9
<MULTIPLIER>                  1000
       
<S> <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                           MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                 563
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                 1872
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                       0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                       0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>            19971
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                 2195
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                   2195
<LOANS>                                28807
<ALLOWANCE>                            286
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         54814
<DEPOSITS>                             35315
<SHORT-TERM>                           6770
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                    290
<LONG-TERM>                            3911
<COMMON>                               59
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0
<PREFERRED>                            0
<OTHER-SE>                             8469
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>         54814
<INTEREST-LOAN>                        1761
<INTEREST-INVEST>                      1042
<INTEREST-OTHER>                       71
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                       2874
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                     1217
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     1777
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                  1097
<LOAN-LOSSES>                          0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                     14
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                        1016
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        285
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>             285
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        0
<CHANGES>                              0
<NET-INCOME>                           173
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          .32
<EPS-DILUTED>                          .32
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                         .0747
<LOANS-NON>                            91
<LOANS-PAST>                           0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                       0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                        0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                       283
<CHARGE-OFFS>                          0
<RECOVERIES>                           3
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                      286
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                   286
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                    0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                0
        

</TABLE>
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2061

To amend the charter of Southeastern University of the District of Columbia.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 5, 2001

Ms. NORTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Government Reform

A BILL

To amend the charter of Southeastern University of the

District of Columbia.

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

3 SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS TO CHARTER OF SOUTH4 EASTERN UNIVERSITY REGARDING BOARD

5 OF TRUSTEES.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 3 of the Act entitled ‘‘An

7 Act for the relief of the Southeastern University of the

8 Young Men’s Christian Association of the District of Co9 lumbia’’, approved August 19, 1937 (50 Stat. 697), as

10 amended by section 1 of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to

11 amend the charter of Southeastern University of the Dis-
2

•HR 2061 IH

1 trict of Columbia’’, approved October 10, 1966 (80 Stat.

2 883), is amended—

3 (1) in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘, one4 third of whom’’ and all that follows and inserting a

5 period; and

6 (2) in the second sentence, by striking ‘‘elected

7 for a term’’ and inserting ‘‘elected by the board for

8 a term’’.

9 (b) TREATMENT OF CURRENT TRUSTEES.—The

10 amendment made by subsection (a) shall not affect the

11 term of office of any individual serving on the Board of

12 Trustees of Southeastern University as of the date of the

13 enactment of this Act.

Æ
Case 1:11-cr-00351-WJM Document 44 Filed 07/16/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 10
Case 1:11-cr-00351-WJM Document 44 Filed 07/16/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 10
Case 1:11-cr-00351-WJM Document 44 Filed 07/16/12 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 10
Case 1:11-cr-00351-WJM Document 44 Filed 07/16/12 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 10
Case 1:11-cr-00351-WJM Document 44 Filed 07/16/12 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 10
Case 1:11-cr-00351-WJM Document 44 Filed 07/16/12 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 10
Case 1:11-cr-00351-WJM Document 44 Filed 07/16/12 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 10
Case 1:11-cr-00351-WJM Document 44 Filed 07/16/12 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 10
Case 1:11-cr-00351-WJM Document 44 Filed 07/16/12 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 10
Case 1:11-cr-00351-WJM Document 44 Filed 07/16/12 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 10
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jamie NEWBURN, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 01-50569.

D.C. No. CR-00-01298-CAS.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 7, 2003.*

Decided March 13, 2003.

Before LAY,** HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

**

 The Honorable Donald P. Lay, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.

*359MEMORANDUM***

Jamie Newburn (“Newburn”) argues that the government’s introduction of certain explicit images at his trial was reversible error. Newburn contends that the images were excludable under Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 403 because they did not prove a material fact and were unfairly prejudicial. However, while Newburn registered his objection to the introduction of the images prior to trial, he chose to mention them in his own direct testimony. The Supreme Court unambiguously held in *Ohler v. United States,*529 U.S. 753, 120 S.Ct. 1851, 146 L.Ed.2d 826 (2000), that “a party introducing evidence cannot complain on appeal that the evidence was erroneously admitted.” *Id.*at 755. *Ohler*held that a defendant may not “short circuit” the government’s right to decide whether to use evidence against the defendant by offering the evidence himself and “still preserve its admission as a claim of error on appeal.” *Id.*at 758. This is precisely what Newburn attempted to do in this case.

AFFIRMED.

***

 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.
##### 



EXHIBIT 10.2

Thousand Trails, Inc.
3801 Parkwood Blvd., Suite 100
Frisco, TX 75034
Attn: Chief Financial Officer

Re: Stock Option Agreement

Ladies and Gentlemen:

The undersigned holder of options to purchase shares of Thousand
Trails, Inc. (the Company) hereby agrees that effective upon consummation of
the merger of the Company with any other person approved by the directors and
the stockholders of the Company in which the holders of common stock will
receive cash, any and all options that I hold to purchase shares of common stock
of the Company granted pursuant to the Companys 1991 Employee Stock Incentive
Plan, 1993 Stock Option and Restricted Stock Purchase Plan, 1993 Director Stock
Option Plan, 1999 Stock Option and Restricted Stock Purchase Plan, 2001 Stock
Option and Restricted Stock Purchase Plan and the Stock Option Agreement dated
as of August 1, 1996 between the Company and William J. Shaw shall be
automatically settled and I will be entitled to receive an amount in cash (if
any, and less applicable withholding taxes) equal to the product of (i) the
excess, if any, of the per share cash consideration in such merger in respect to
a share of Company common stock over the per share exercise price of such
Company stock option, and (ii) the number of shares of Company common stock
subject to such Company stock option as of the effective time of the merger,
without interest, whether or not such Company stock option is then vested.

I understand that my agreement to settle my options provided in this
letter is irrevocable and modifies the applicable stock option agreement to the
extent inconsistent with the provisions thereof. Thank you.

| |                                   
| | ----------------------------------
| | Very truly yours,                 
|
| | /s/ William J. ShawWilliam J. Shaw

Agreed to and accepted:
Thousand Trails, Inc.

|    |                                                       | 
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------- | 
|By: | /s/ Walter B. JaccardWalter B. Jaccard
Vice President | 





---



##### 



EXHIBIT 10.2 (continued)

Substantially identical letters have been signed by the following
directors and officers of the Company:

Arthur H. Baer
Andrew M. Boas
William P. Kovacs
Donald R. Leopold
H. Sean Mathis
R. Gerald Gelinas
Kenneth E. Hendrycy
Walter B. Jaccard
David A. McCrum
Bradley D. Nelson
Bryan R. Reed

2
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 3Federal Reserve Bank of: PhiladelphiaFilings received during the week ending December 9, 2006FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodNONE
#### Clemence ZENGUI GOMA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 02-2295.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 31, 2003.

Decided Aug. 19, 2003.

Cynthia B. Rosenberg, Rourke & Rosenberg, L.L.C., Baltimore, Maryland, for Petitioner. Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jane Candaux, Senior Litigation, Anh-Thu P. Mai, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Clemence Zengui Goma, a native and citizen of the Republic of Congo, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board). The order affirmed, without opinion, the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision denying Goma’s applications for asylum, withholding of re*264moval, voluntary departure, and for relief under the Convention Against Torture.

On appeal, Goma asserts that the Board erred in designating her case as appropriate for affirmance without opinion, after review by a single Board member, in accordance with the procedure set out in 8 C.F.R. § 1008.1(a)(7) (2003). This section allows a single Board member to enter an order affirming the result of the IJ’s decision if the result reached is correct; any errors are harmless or nonmaterial; and either the issue on appeal is squarely controlled by Board or federal circuit court precedent and does not involve application of precedent to a novel fact situation, or the factual and legal questions raised are so insubstantial that three-member review is not warranted. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(a)(7) (ii).

We reject Goma’s challenges to the Board’s use of the procedure in her case based on our finding that the summary affirmance was appropriate here under the factors set forth in § 1003.1(a)(7)(ii). In addition, we find Goma’s challenge to the summary affirmance procedure on due process grounds to be without merit. *See Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft,*335 F.3d 1009, 1010 (9th Cir.2003); *Georgis v. Ashcroft,*328 F.3d 962, 967 (7th Cir.2003); *Mendoza v. United States Attorney Gen.,*327 F.3d 1283, 1288-89 (11th Cir.2003); *Soadjede v. Ashcroft,*324 F.3d 830, 832-33 (5th Cir.2003); *Gonzalez-Oropeza v. United States Attorney Gen.,*321 F.3d 1331, 1333-34 (11th Cir.2003); *Albathani v. INS,*318 F.3d 365, 375-79 (1st Cir.2003); *cf. Khattak v. Ashcroft,*332 F.3d 250, 253 (4th Cir.2003) (rejecting a retroactivity challenge to the Board’s summary affirmance procedure and concluding that “allowing summary opinions in clear cases is nothing more than a procedural change that does not affect substantive rights”).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED.*