alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Pedro PRECIADO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-74178.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.*

Filed March 10, 2011.

Carlos Alfredo Cruz, Esquire, Law Offices of Carlos A. Cruz, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioner.

Richard M. Evans, Esquire, Assistant Director, OIL, Andrew Jacob Oliveira, Esquire, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Pedro Preciado, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance. *Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey,*526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir.2008) (per curiam). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Contrary to the respondent’s contention, Preciado’s petition for review was timely *730filed on September 29, 2008. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Fed. R.App. P. 26(a)(1)(C).

The agency did not abuse its discretion by not granting a continuance where Preciado did not request a continuance.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Preciado’s challenge to the IJ’s determination that he is removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) because he failed to exhaust it. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2809 

To amend the Wilderness Act to allow recreation organizations consisting 

of hikers or horseback riders to cross wilderness areas on established 

trails, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 10, 2009 

Mr. LAMBORN (for himself and Mr. SMITH of Texas) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Wilderness Act to allow recreation organizations consisting of hikers or horseback riders to cross 

wilderness areas on established trails, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ABILITY OF RECREATION ORGANIZATIONS TO 

4 CROSS WILDERNESS AREAS ON ESTABLISHED 

5 TRAILS. 

6 Section 4(d) of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 

7 1133(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following 

8 new paragraph: 


tjames on PRODPC75 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2809 IH

1 ‘‘(8) USE BY RECREATION ORGANIZATIONS.— 

2 ‘‘(A) RECREATION ORGANIZATION DEFINED.— 

3 In this paragraph, a ‘recreation organization’ is an 

4 organization of hikers or horseback riders— 

5 ‘‘(i) whose purposes include one or more of 

6 the following: 

7 ‘‘(I) the promotion of the development 

8 and preservation of trails throughout Fed9 eral lands; 

10 ‘‘(II) the promotion and encourage11 ment of education of the public about the 

12 fragile nature of mountain and forest ecol13 ogy and the necessity for its protection and 

14 preservation; or 

15 ‘‘(III) the gathering and dissemina16 tion of information regarding the use and 

17 enjoyment of wilderness areas and other 

18 Federal land; and 

19 ‘‘(ii) whose leadership has by reputation 

20 and practice over a period of at least 10 years 

21 demonstrated compliance and consistency with 

22 one or more of those purposes. 

23 ‘‘(B) Members of a recreation organization act24 ing as an organized unit and regardless of their 

25 number shall have the right to cross wilderness 


tjames on PRODPC75 with BILLS
3 

•HR 2809 IH

1 areas on established trails without restriction as part 

2 of a journey along a connecting system of trails 

3 across public, private, or wilderness area lands, so 

4 long as such travel is conducted within one day and 

5 is completed without unreasonable delay. Such travel 

6 shall neither be deemed inconsistent with the pur7 poses of a wilderness area nor to affect any wilder8 ness area’s opportunities for solitude or a primitive 

9 and unconfined type of recreation. 

10 ‘‘(C) The agency administering any wilderness 

11 area may limit the exercise of such right within any 

12 specific wilderness area to not more than 10 wilder13 ness crossings annually and may establish fair proce14 dures to implement this paragraph, except that the 

15 right of a recreation organization hereby granted 

16 shall not be impaired during such process.’’. 

Æ 


tjames on PRODPC75 with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Schmanisky V. BROADWAY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-30130

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 19, 2011.

Josette Louise Cassiere, Assistant U.S. Attorney, James G. Cowles, Jr., Assistant *380U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Betty Lee Marak, Esq, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Shreveport, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Schmanisky V. Broadway pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and one count of possessing a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense. He was sentenced to serve a 240-month prison term on the drug count as well as a consecutive 60-month prison term on the firearms conviction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(l)(A)(i).

In the sole issue raised on appeal, Broadway argues that the district court erred by sentencing him to a consecutive mandatory five-year minimum sentence under § 924(c)(l)(A)(i) because his drug offense carried a greater minimum sentence. This argument has been rejected by both this court and the United States Supreme Court. *Abbott v. United States,*— U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 18, 23, 178 L.Ed.2d 348 (2010); *United States v. London,*568 F.3d 553, 564 (5th Cir.2009), *cert. denied,*— U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 631, 178 L.Ed.2d 507 (2010).

AFFIRMED.

*

**Pursuant to 5th Cm. 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 5th Cm. R. 47.5.4.
# ORIGINAL
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA OP 24-0060 DAVID E. ORR,

Petitioner,
v. NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, LINCOLN COUNTY, HON. MATTHEW J. CUFFE, Presiding.

Respondent. ORDER 

# FILED FEB 2 0 2024 Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Supreme Court State of Montana

David E. Orr has filed an "Emergency Petition for Writ of Supervisory Control" over the Nineteenth Judicial District Court, Lincoln County, requesting "reversal of wrongfultransfer ofproperty"in a civilmatter ofwhich Orr providesthathehas an appeal. We amend the caption to correct the District Court's title. Supervisory control may be appropriate on a case-by-case basis. "This extraordinary remedy can be invoked when the case involves purely legal questions and urgent or emergency factors make the normal appeal process inadequate." State v. Spady, 2015 MT 218, ¶ 11, 380 Mont. 179, 354 P.3d 590 (citing M. R. App. P. 14(3);Reddingv. McCarter, 2012 MT 144, ¶ 17, 365 Mont. 316, 281 P.3d 189). Supervisory control isnotappropriatehere. Orrhasan appeal oftheDistrictCourt's quiet title decision pending with this Court. Orr v. House, No. DA 23-0699. His instant writ is a somewhat modified version ofhis filed, openingbrief. The writ is over-length at 10,000 words, pursuant to M. R. App. P. 14(5), and it is inappropriate because of the pending appeal. M. R. App. P. 14(3). Orr's appeal is his remedy. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that Orr's Emergency Petition for Writ ofSupervisory Control is DENIED and DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is CLOSED as ofthis Order's date. 02/20/2024

Case Number: OP 24-0060The Clerk is directed to provide a copy ofthis Order to: the Honorable Matthew J.

Cuffe, District Court Judge; counsel ofrecord; and David E. Orr personally. DATED this Z-.0 day ofFebruary, 2024.

Justices

2 

# e
Presidential Documents

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 4, 2017 / Presidential Documents 46367 

Executive Order 13812 of September 29, 2017 

Revocation of Executive Order Creating Labor-Management 

Forums 

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the 

laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows: 

Section 1. Policy. The United States Government should spend tax dollars 

responsibly, efficiently, and in the public interest. The National Council 

on Federal Labor-Management Relations (Council) and related agency-level 

labor-management forums have consumed considerable managerial time and 

taxpayer resources, but they have not fulfilled their goal of promoting collaboration in the Federal workforce. Public expenditures on the Council and 

related forums have produced few benefits to the public, and they should, 

therefore, be discontinued. 

Sec. 2. Revocations. (a) Executive Order 13522 of December 9, 2009 (Creating 

Labor-Management Forums to Improve Delivery of Government Services), 

as extended by Executive Order 13708 of September 30, 2015 (Continuance 

or Reestablishment of Certain Federal Advisory Committees), which established the Council and implemented labor-management forums throughout 

the executive branch, is hereby revoked. 

(b) The Director of the Office of Personnel Management and heads of 

executive departments and agencies shall, consistent with law, promptly 

move to rescind any orders, rules, regulations, guidelines, programs, or 

policies implementing or enforcing Executive Order 13522. 

Sec. 3. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall abrogate any 

collective bargaining agreements in effect on the date of this order. 

(b) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: 

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, 

or the head thereof; or 

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget 

relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals. 

(c) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and 

subject to the availability of appropriations. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PRES DOCS
46368 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 4, 2017 / Presidential Documents 

(d) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or 

benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any 

party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its 

officers, employees, or agents, or any other person. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

September 29, 2017. 

[FR Doc. 2017–21559 

Filed 10–3–17; 11:15 am] 

Billing code 3295–F7–P 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PRES DOCSTrump.EPS</GPH>
#### Dushun A. WHITE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. A.P. KANE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 07-17169.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 10, 2011.

Dushun A. White, Soledad, CA, pro se.

Amber N. Wipfler, Esquire, Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Dushun A. White appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We dismiss.

White contends that the Board’s 2003 decision to deny him parole was not supported by “some evidence” and therefore violated his due process rights. After briefing was completed in this case, this court held that a certificate of appealability (“COA”) is required to challenge the denial of parole. *See Hayward v. Marshall,*603 F.3d 546, 554-55 (9th Cir.2010) (en banc). Now the Supreme Court has held that the only federal right at issue in the parole context is procedural, and the only proper inquiry is what process the inmate received, not whether the state court decided the case correctly. *See Swarthout v. Cooke,*— U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 859, 862-63, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011). Because White raises no procedural challenges, a COA cannot issue, and we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

White’s request to file a letter brief, filed on October 2, 2008, is denied.

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
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 Altair Nanotechnologies Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2009 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, John Fallini, Chief Financial 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 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.






/s/  John
      FalliniJohn
      Fallini, Chief Financial Officer
              May 8,
2009
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-40567

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TERRY ANDERSON, also known as

Terri Blackburn,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:96-CR-50-1

- - - - - - - - - -

February 12, 1998

Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Terry Anderson appeals her sentence for her conviction of

conspiracy to manufacture with intent to distribute

methamphetamine. She argues that the district court clearly

erred in finding that she possessed a firearm during the

commission of the drug offense. 

The presentence report (PSR) was sufficiently reliable in

demonstrating, and Anderson presented no evidence to rebut, that
No. 97-40567

-2-

the gun was found in her residence, that her residence was a

known site for drug distributions during the drug conspiracy, and

that the conspiracy existed at the time the gun was found. The

district court’s two-level enhancement of Anderson’s base offense

under the United States Sentencing Guidelines § 2D1.1(b)(1) was

not clear error. See United States v. Caicedo, 103 F.3d 410, 412

(5th Cir. 1997); see also United States v. Puig-Infante, 19 F.3d

929, 943 (5th Cir. 1994).

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

In connection with the Annual Report of Polymer Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January 1,
2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Willis C. Moore III, 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 to my knowledge:



|Date: March 29, 2005 | /s/WILLIS C. MOORE, IIIWillis C. Moore, III Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
|-------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

---



QuickLinks
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

###### Office of Foreign Assets Control

# AGENCY:

Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the name of a person whose property and interests in property have been unblocked pursuant to Executive Order 13581 of July 24, 2011, “Blocking Property of Transnational Criminal Organizations.”

# DATES:

OFAC's actions described in this notice were effective on June 6, 2017.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control: Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480, Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-4855, Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490; or the Department of the Treasury's Office of the Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), Office of the General Counsel, tel.: 202-622-2410.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Electronic Availability

                    The list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN List) and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available from OFAC's Web site at                     *http://www.treasury.gov/​ofac.*

## Notice of OFAC Actions

On June 6, 2017, OFAC removed from the SDN List the person listed below, whose property and interests in property were blocked pursuant to Executive Order 13581.

### Individual

1. BOTTCHER, Monica Elizabete (a.k.a. BOTTCHER, Monica Elizabeth), 45 Knock Rushen, Castletown, Isle of Man IM9 1TQ, United Kingdom; DOB 26 Feb 1973 (individual) [TCO] (Linked To: PACNET BRAZIL; Linked To: PACNET GROUP)

Dated: June 6, 2017.

Andrea Gacki,

Acting Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control.

              Editorial Note            

#### Editorial Note:

This document was received at the Office of the Federal Register on Friday, October 6, 2017.

[FR Doc. 2017-22096 Filed 10-11-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4810-AL-P
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 195 (Wednesday, October 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 47264]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21988]



[[Page 47264]]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: Investor Advisory Committee will hold a meeting 9:30 
a.m. on Thursday, October 12, 2017.

PLACE: Multi-Purpose Room LL-006 at the Commission's headquarters, 100 
F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549.

STATUS: This meeting will be open to the public. Seating will be on a 
first-come, first-served basis. Doors will open at 9:00 a.m. Visitors 
will be subject to security checks. The meeting will be webcast on the 
Commission's Web site at www.sec.gov.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: On September 12, 2017, the Commission issued 
notice of the Committee meeting (Release No. 33-10412), indicating that 
the meeting is open to the public (except during that portion of the 
meeting reserved for an administrative work session during lunch), and 
inviting the public to submit written comments to the Committee. This 
Sunshine Act notice is being issued because a quorum of the Commission 
may attend the meeting.
    The agenda for the meeting includes: Remarks from Commissioners; a 
discussion regarding blockchain and other distributed ledger technology 
and implications for securities markets; an overview of law school 
clinic advocacy efforts on behalf of retail investors; a discussion 
regarding electronic delivery of information to retail investors (which 
may include a recommendation of the Investor as Purchaser 
Subcommittee); subcommittee reports; and a nonpublic administrative 
work session during lunch.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information and to 
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed; 
please contact Brent J. Fields from the Office of the Secretary at 
(202) 551-5400.

    Dated: October 5, 2017.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-21988 Filed 10-6-17; 11:15 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
| Subsidiary                         | State of Incorporation                 |
|------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|
|                               |                                   |
| TESSCO Incorporated                | Delaware                               |
| Wireless Solutions Inc.            | Maryland                               |
| TESSCO Service Solutions, Inc.     | Delaware                               |
| TESSCO de Mexico S.A. de C.V.      | Mexico                                 |
| TESSCO Communications Incorporated | Delaware                               |
| TESSCO Financial Corporation       | Delaware                               |
| TESSCO Business Services LLC       | Delaware                               |
| TESSCO Integrated Solutions, LP    | Delaware                               |
| GW Services Solutions, Inc.        |      Delaware |
| TCPM, Inc.                         | Delaware                               |
Exhibit






Exhibit 10.5
Schedule of Omitted Documents
of Griffin Capital Essential Asset REIT II, Inc.


The following Promissory Notes have not been filed as an exhibit pursuant to Instruction 2 of Item 601 of Regulation S-K; these documents are substantially identical in all material respects, except as noted below, to Exhibit 10.3 to this Form 8-K:
	
		
	1.
	Promissory Note A-1-2 in the amount of $45,000,000.00 dated April 27, 2018.




	
		
	2.
	Promissory Note A-2-1 in the amount of $60,000,000.00 dated April 27, 2018.




	
		
	3.
	Promissory Note A-2-2 in the amount of $45,000,000.00 dated April 27, 2018.




	
		
	4.
	Promissory Note A-2-3 in the amount of $20,000,000.00 dated April 27, 2018.






The following first mortgage liens have not been filed as an exhibit pursuant to Instruction 2 of Item 601 of Regulation S-K; these documents are substantially identical in all material respects, except as noted below, to Exhibit 10.4 to this Form 8-K:
	
		
	1.
	Mortgage, Assignment of Leases and Rents, Security Agreement, and Fixture Filing for the 3M Company Property.




	
		
	2.
	Deed of Trust, Assignment of Leases and Rents, and Security Agreement for the IGT Property.




	
		
	3.
	Open-End Mortgage, Assignment of Leases and Rents, Security Agreement, and Fixture Filing for the Amazon.com.dedc LLC Property.