alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Abedin NIKOVIC, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Respondent.

No. 05-3560-ag.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Nov. 6, 2006.

*77Linda L. Foster, Queens Village, New York, for Petitioner.

Alice H. Martin, United States Attorney, Northern District of Alabama, Jenny L. Smith, Assistant United States Attorney, Birmingham, Alabama, for Respondent.

PRESENT: Hon. DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, Hon. PIERRE N. LEVAL, Hon. SONIA SOTOMAYOR, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Abedin Nikovic, a native and citizen of the former Yugoslavia, seeks review of a June 2, 2005 order of the BIA denying a motion to reconsider its February 2, 2005 order affirming the December 8, 2003 decision of immigration judge (“IJ”) Noel Ferris denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). *In re Abedin Nikovic,*No. [ AXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. June 2, 2005). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.

This Court reviews the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion. *See Kaur v. BIA,*413 F.3d 232, 233 (2d Cir.2005) (per curiam); *Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales,*439 F.3d 109, 111 (2d Cir. 2006). A motion to reconsider “requests that the Board re-examine its decision in light of additional legal arguments, a change of law, or perhaps an argument or aspect of the case which was overlooked.” *Matter of Cerna,*20 I. *&*N. Dec. 399, 1991 WL 353528 (BIA 1991). In his motion to reconsider, Nikovic presented the same arguments that he had presented to the BIA on direct appeal of the IJ’s decision, upon which the BIA determined that he failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of his evasion of the Serbian army draft. Because Nikovic did not present any new arguments to the BIA in his motion to reconsider, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. *Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales,*439 F.3d 109, 111 (2d Cir.2006) (citing *Strato v. Ashcroft,*388 F.3d 651, 655 (8th Cir.2004)).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. Having completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DENIED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34(d)(1).
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2690 

To reduce and modify the temporary suspension of duty on Iprodione. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 2, 2009 

Mr. BURR introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To reduce and modify the temporary suspension of duty 

on Iprodione. 

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

3 SECTION 1. IPRODIONE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.01.51 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amend6 ed— 

7 (1) by striking the article description and in8 serting ‘‘Products containing Iprodione (3-(3,5- 

9 dicholorophenyl)-N-(1-methylethyl)-2,4-dioxo-1- 

10 imidazolidinecarboxamide) (CAS No. 36734–19–7) 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2690 IS

1 and application adjuvants (provided for in sub2 heading 3808.92.15)’’; 

3 (2) by striking ‘‘2%’’ and inserting ‘‘2.4%’’; 

4 and 

5 (3) by striking the date in the effective period 

6 column and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

8 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 

9 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

10 January 1, 2010. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
#### Benito PABLO-ORTIZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-74098.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*764Submitted June 12, 2006.*

Filed June 21, 2006.

Kaaren L. Barr, Esq., Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, WWS-District Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, Victor M. Lawrence, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Philip Giordano, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: WALLACE, KLEINFELD, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Benito Pablo-Ortiz, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming an immigration judge’s decision pretermitting his application for asylum, and denying his application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is conferred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial evidence, *Kasnecovic v. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 812, 813 (9th Cir.2005), we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of Pablo-Ortiz’s asylum application as untimely. *See 8*U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3); *Ramadan v. Gonzales,*427 F.3d 1218,1222 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that this court lacks jurisdiction to review the agency determination that asylum application was not filed within one year after the last entry into the United States and no “changed circumstances” excused late filing).

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Pablo-Ortiz failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal because he conceded that he was never personally targeted or threatened in any way by the people he believes harmed his uncle and may have caused the disappearance of his father. Thus, Pablo-Ortiz failed to show a “clear probability” that if he were to return to Guatemala he would be persecuted by guerillas, or any other individuals the government is unable or unwilling to control. *Lim v. INS,*224 F.3d 929, 938 (9th Cir.2000).

Pablo-Ortiz also failed to establish eligibility for CAT relief because he failed to show that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if he were to return to Guatemala. *See Kamalthas v. INS,*251 F.3d 1279,1284 (9th Cir.2001).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Franklin Howard ROREBECK, also known as Frank White, Appellant.

No. 05-3407.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: July 6, 2006.

Filed: July 10, 2006.

Sara Elizabeth Fullerton, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Lincoln, NE, for Appellee.

Franklin Howard Rorebeck, Terre Haute, IN, pro se.

Donald Lee Schense, Bellevue, NE, for Appellant.

Before RILEY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Franklin H. Rorebeck pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in *694violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846. The district court1 sentenced him to 210 months in prison and 5 years of supervised release. On appeal, in a brief filed pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel challenges the district court’s denial of a downward departure from the advisory Guidelines range based on Rorebeck’s overstated criminal history. The district court’s decision is unreviewable because the court acknowledged its authority to depart, and nothing in the record indicates the court’s refusal was based upon an unconstitutional motive. *See United States v. Morell,*429 F.3d 1161, 1164 (8th Cir. 2005) (following *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), district court’s discretionary decision not to depart downward is still not reviewable under 18 U.S.C. § 3742); *United States v. Dabney,*367 F.3d 1040, 1044 (8th Cir.2004) (district court’s refusal to grant downward departure is generally unreviewable on appeal, unless district court had unconstitutional motive or erroneously believed it was without authority to grant departure).

Having independently reviewed the entire record in accordance with *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and finding no nonfrivolous issues, we affirm the judgment of the district court. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

1

. The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Sebastian Delamota, Appellant.

Submitted December 6, 2010;

decided December 14, 2010

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Lynn WL. Fa-hey, Esq., Appellate Advocates, 2 Rector Street, 10th Floor, New *938York, NY 10006 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-22-0000477

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I
AUSTIN ROSA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KAUA I POLICE DEPARTMENT; OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, COUNTY OF KAUA I,

Defendants-Appellees

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

(CASE NO. 5CCV-22-00023)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL (By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Nakasone and Chan, JJ.) Upon review of the record, it appears that: (1) The statement of jurisdiction and opening brief were due on or before October 11, 2022, and November 10, 2022, respectively;

(2) Self-represented Plaintiff-Appellant Austin Rosa (Rosa) failed to file either document, or request an extension of time; (3) On November 29, 2022, the appellate clerk entered a default notice informing Rosa that the time for filing the statement of jurisdiction and opening brief had expired, the matter would be called to the court's attention on December 9, 2022, for appropriate action, which could include dismissal of the appeal, under Hawai i Rules of Appellate Procedure Rules 12.1(e) and 30, and Rosa could request relief from default by motion; and Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-22-0000477 19-MAY-2023 08:12 AM Dkt. 18 ODSDNOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

(4) Rosa has not taken any further action in this appeal. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed.DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, May 19, 2023. /s/ Lisa M. Ginoza Chief Judge /s/ Karen T. Nakasone Associate Judge /s/ Derrick H.M. Chan Associate Judge

2
/*! http://tinynav.viljamis.com v1.2 by @viljamis */
(function(a,k,g){a.fn.tinyNav=function(l){var c=a.extend({active:"selected",header:"",indent:"- ",label:""},l);return this.each(function(){g++;var h=a(this),b="tinynav"+g,f=".l_"+b,e=a("<select/>").attr("id",b).addClass("tinynav "+b);if(h.is("ul,ol")){""!==c.header&&e.append(a("<option/>").text(c.header));var d="";h.addClass("l_"+b).find("a").each(function(){d+='<option value="'+a(this).attr("href")+'">';var b;for(b=0;b<a(this).parents("ul, ol").length-1;b++)d+=c.indent;d+=a(this).text()+"</option>"});
e.append(d);c.header||e.find(":eq("+a(f+" li").index(a(f+" li."+c.active))+")").attr("selected",!0);e.change(function(){k.location.href=a(this).val()});a(f).after(e);c.label&&e.before(a("<label/>").attr("for",b).addClass("tinynav_label "+b+"_label").append(c.label))}})}})(jQuery,this,0);
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.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

# ACTION:

Correction to notice and request for comments.

# SUMMARY:

                        This document contains a correction to a notice and request for comments that was published in the                         **Federal Register**                         on Friday, May 29, 2009 at 74 FR 25811 inviting the general public and other Federal Agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Requests for additional information or copies  of the forms and instructions should be directed to Allan Hopkins, (202) 622-6665, or  at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC  20224, or through the internet, at                         *Allan.M.Hopkins@irs.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Background

The notice and request for comments that is the subject of this correction is required  by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).

## Need for Correction

As published, the notice and request for comments for Proposed Collection; Comment  Request for Form 13285-A contains an error that may prove to be misleading and is in need of  clarification.

## Correction of Publication

Accordingly, the publication of the notice and request for comments for Proposed  Collection; Comment Request for Form 13285-A, which was the subject of FR Doc. E9-12465, is corrected as follows:

                    On page 25811, column 2, under the caption                     **DATES:**                    , line 2, the language “received  on or before June 19, 2006 to” is corrected to read “received on or before July 30, 2009 to”.                

LaNita Van Dyke,

Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch,  Legal Processing Division,  Associate Chief Counsel   (Procedure and Administration).

[FR Doc. E9-13244 Filed 6-5-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
#### In the Matter of Scott M. Fancher, Petitioner, v Mary L. Kessler, Respondent. Scott A. Otis, Attorney for the Children, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 3.)

[976 NYS2d 923]

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Jefferson County (Peter A. Schwerzmann, A.J.), entered September 10, 2012 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order dismissed the petition for violation of an order of custody.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Same memorandum as in *Matter of Kessler v Fancher*(112 AD3d 1323 [2013]). Present — Scudder, EJ., Centra, Lindley, Sconiers and Valentino, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Sean Wilson, Appellant, v Caroline Kilkenny, Respondent.

Submitted October 18, 2010;

decided November 30, 2010

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied *[see*15 NY3d 817 (2010)].
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.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

          - [Project No. 2232-570] 

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47879), the Commission has reviewed an application, filed June 18, 2009, for non-project use of project lands and waters at the Catawba-Wateree Project, FERC Project No. 2232. The licensee seeks Commission approval to permit the City of Lenoir, North Carolina to construct a new raw water intake at Lake Rhodhiss. The Environmental Assessment (EA) analyzes the environmental impacts of the proposed construction and operation of the new intake facility and concludes that approval of the application, with appropriate environmental measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. The project is located on the Catawba and Wateree Rivers in North and South Carolina. 

                    The EA was written by staff in the Office of Energy Projects, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission). A copy of the EA is attached to a Commission order titled “Order Approving Non-Project Use of Project Lands and Waters: Construction of Raw Water Intake” issued October 16, 2009, and is on file with the Commission and is available for public inspections. The EA may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at                     *http://www.ferc.gov*                     using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at                     *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov*                     or toll-free at 1-866-208-3372, or for TTY, (202) 502-8659.                 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E9-25615 Filed 10-23-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Exhibit 4.1



 


THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON


NEW YORK’S FIRST BANK-FOUNDED 1784 BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON


 


 


240 Greenwich
Street, 22W Floor, New York, NY 10286


 


 


 


August 5, 2022


 


Hennion & Walsh, Inc.


2001 Route 46, Waterview Plaza


Parsippany, New Jersey 07054


 


SmartTrust 580 (the “Fund”)


 


Dear Sirs:


The Bank of New York Mellon
is acting as trustee for the Fund, consisting of the unit investment trusts (the “Trusts”) included in the Registration
Statement relating to the Fund. We enclosed a list of the securities to be deposited in the Trusts on the date hereof. The prices indicated
therein reflect our evaluation of such securities as of close of business on August 4, 2022, in accordance with the valuation method set
forth in the applicable Standard Terms and Conditions of Trust and Trust Agreements. We consent to the reference to The Bank of New York
Mellon as the party performing the evaluations of the Trust securities in the Registration Statement (No. 333-265043) filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission with respect to the registration of the sale of the Units of the Trusts and to the filing of this consent as an
exhibit thereto.


 


Very truly yours,


 


/s/  Margarita
Kalantarova 


Margarita Kalantarova


Vice President
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 Annual Report of Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to her 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 operation of the Company.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|               |  |     |  |                                         
|-------------- |  | --- |  | ----------------------------------------
|March 16, 2010 |  | By: |  | /s/ Marliss D. Johnson                  
|               |  |     |  | Vice President, Controller and Treasurer
|               |  |     |  | Marliss D. Johnson
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 on Form 10-QSB of Bio-Imaging Technologies, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Ted I. Kaminer, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
that:



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



(2) The information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Bio-Imaging Technologies, Inc.



|                       |  |                                                
|---------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------
|                       |  | /s/ Ted I. Kaminer*                            
|Dated: August 13, 2004 |  | Ted I. Kaminer, Senior Vice President and Chief
|                       |  | Financial Officer                              
|                       |  | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)   

---

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