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

No. 09-71936.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 22, 2011.

Marc Karlin, Karlin & Karlin, Ape, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Remi Adalemo, OIL, John Clifford Cunningham, I, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

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 **

Samuel Garcia-Aguilar, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review Garcia-Aguilar’s collateral challenge to his 1997 expedited removal order. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(A)(1), (e)(2) (this Court lacks jurisdiction to review expedited removal orders unless challenged in habeas corpus proceedings); *see also Avendano-Ramirez v. Ashcroft,*365 F.3d 813, 818-19 (9th Cir. 2004) (habeas corpus review of expedited removal orders narrowly limited).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

**

 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. 3002 

To protect all patients by prohibiting the use of data obtained from comparative effectiveness research to deny coverage of items or services under 

Federal health care programs and to ensure that comparative effectiveness research accounts for advancements in personalized medicine and 

differences in patient treatment response. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 23, 2009 

Mr. BOEHNER (for himself and Mr. CANTOR) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in 

addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 

provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To protect all patients by prohibiting the use of data obtained from comparative effectiveness research to deny 

coverage of items or services under Federal health care 

programs and to ensure that comparative effectiveness 

research accounts for advancements in personalized medicine and differences in patient treatment response. 

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


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HR 3002 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Preserving Access to 

3 Targeted, Individualized, and Effective New Treatments 

4 and Services (PATIENTS) Act of 2009’’ or the ‘‘PA5 TIENTS Act of 2009’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN USES OF DATA OB7 TAINED FROM COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVE8 NESS RESEARCH; ACCOUNTING FOR PERSON9 ALIZED MEDICINE AND DIFFERENCES IN PA10 TIENT TREATMENT RESPONSE. 

11 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi12 sion of law, the Secretary of Health and Human Serv13 ices— 

14 (1) shall not use data obtained from the con15 duct of comparative effectiveness research, including 

16 such research that is conducted or supported using 

17 funds appropriated under the American Recovery 

18 and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–5), 

19 to deny coverage of an item or service under a Fed20 eral health care program (as defined in section 

21 1128B(f) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

22 1320a–7b(f))); and 

23 (2) shall ensure that comparative effectiveness 

24 research conducted or supported by the Federal 

25 Government accounts for factors contributing to dif26 ferences in the treatment response and treatment 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
3 

•HR 3002 IH

1 preferences of patients, including patient-reported 

2 outcomes, genomics and personalized medicine, the 

3 unique needs of health disparity populations, and in4 direct patient benefits. 

5 (b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this sec6 tion shall be construed as affecting the authority of the 

7 Commissioner of Food and Drugs under the Federal 

8 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act or the Public Health Serv9 ice Act. 

Æ 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
WWW.EXFILE.COM -- MATRITECH, INC. -- FORM 8-K -- EXHIBIT 4.1 -- 15071


    EXHIBIT
      4.1

     

    

      ELECTION
        REGARDING PAYMENTS DUE APRIL 13, 2007 ON SERIES A 

      15%
        SECURED CONVERTIBLE PROMISSORY NOTES

      


       

      The
        undersigned Holder hereby elects to have Matritech, Inc. defer all payments
        due
        April 13, 2007 for principal and interest on the Series A 15% Secured
        Convertible Promissory Notes held by the Holder to May 13, 2007.      

      
 

      Holder:
        ______________________

      


      


      By:_________________________
        

      Name:_______________________
        

      Title:________________________
         

      Date:________________________
#### Robert A. WALSH, Claimant-Appellant, v. Eric K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 2009-7143.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

May 25, 2011.

*975Before RADER, Chief Judge, LOURIE and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges.

ON MOTION

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs moves to vacate the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and to remand for further proceedings.

The appellant filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Veterans Claims more than 120 days after the Board of Veterans’ Appeals mailed its decision in his case. That court dismissed the appeal as untimely, concluding that the 120-day appeal period established by 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a) for seeking review of Board of Veterans’ Appeals decisions is jurisdictional and not subject to equitable tolling. The appellant sought this court’s review.

This court stayed the briefing schedule in this appeal pending the United States Supreme Court’s review of our decision in *Henderson v. Shinseki,*589 F.3d 1201 (Fed.Cir.2009) (en banc) (affirming Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims determination that period to appeal to that court is not subject to equitable tolling). In *Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki,*— U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1197, 179 L.Ed.2d 159 (2011), the Supreme Court reversed this court’s decision and concluded that the 120-day deadline for filing an appeal with the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims does not have jurisdictional consequences. Because the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims erred in concluding that the appeal deadline established by § 7266(a) is jurisdictional, we vacate the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims’ judgment and remand for further proceedings.

Accordingly,

It Is Ordered That:

(1) The motion is granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

(2) All sides shall bear their own costs.
#### Kenneth S. ALEXANDER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; et al., Defendants, *751Jesus Fernandez, MD, FCI Victorville 1; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 12-55930.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 21, 2014.*

Filed Jan. 27, 2014.

Kenneth S. Alexander, Anchorage, AK, pro se.

Mark B. Stern, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Katherine M. Hikida, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USLA-Offiee of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Susan Jane Lindquist, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Edward Bryan Wilson, III, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Anchorage, AK, Justin Janzen, Reback McAndrews *&*Kjar, San Bernardino, CA, Matthew Levinson, Cole Pedroza, LLP, Pasadena, CA, for Defendants/Defendants-Appellees.

Before: CANBY, SILVERMAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Former federal prisoner Kenneth S. Alexander appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his action brought under *Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics,*403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), alleging that defendants failed properly to treat his hand injury. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C § 1291. We review de novo. *Morrison v. Hall,*261 F.3d 896, 900 (9th Cir. 2001). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Alexander failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether his claims accrued after he filed his Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition or were abandoned or administered by the trustee. *See*11 U.S.C. § 554(d) (“Unless the court orders otherwise, property of the estate that is not abandoned under this section and that is not administered in the case remains property of the estate.”); *Canatella v. Towers (In re Alcala),*918 F.2d 99, 102 (9th Cir.1990) (causes of action that accrued before Chapter 7 petition is filed are part of the estate vested in the trustee). Accordingly, Alexander is not the real party in interest and has no standing to pursue his claims. *See*Fed.R.Civ.P. 17(a)(1) (“An action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.”); *see also Estate of Spirtos v. One San Bernadino Cnty. Superior Court Case Numbered SPR 02211,*443 F.3d 1172,1176 (9th Cir.2006) (bankruptcy code endows bankruptcy trustee with exclusive right to sue on behalf of estate).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to consider Alexander’s “supplemental objection” filed after entry of judgment. *See Preminger v. Peake,*552 F.3d 757, 769 n. 11 (9th Cir.2008) (standard of review); *S. Cal. Edison Co. v. Lynch,*307 F.3d 794, 807 (9th Cir.2002) (“District courts have ‘inherent power’ to control their dockets.” (citation omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

**

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

| Depositor:                              | Structured                Asset Securities CorporationAttention:                Mortgage Finance LMT 2006-2745                7th Avenue, 7th Floor New                York, NY 10019               |
|-----------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                    |                                                                                                                                                                                                |
| Master                Servicer:         | Aurora                Loan Services LLC Chris                Baker327                Inverness Drive SouthEnglewood,                CO 80112                                                        |
|                                    |                                                                                                                                                                                                |
| Trustee:                                | LaSalle                Bank, N.A.Attention:                Global Securitization Trust Services Group LMT 2006-2135                South LaSalle Street, Suite 1625Chicago,                IL 60603 |
|                                    |                                                                                                                                                                                                |
| Subject:                                | Annual                Officer's Certification                                                                                                                                                       |
| Fiscal                Year:   | 2006                                                                                                                                                                                                |
| Investor                Code:           | F33                                                                                                                                                                                                 |
| Investor                Name:           | LMT                2006-2                                                                                                                                                                           |

|   | Certified                  by: AURORA LOAN SERVICES LLC   |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | By/s/                  Terry L. Gentry                         |
|   | Name:                  Terry L. Gentry                         |
|   | Title:                  Managing Director                      |

----
#### In the Matter of Michael Henry, an Attorney, Resignor.

[987 NYS2d 274]

Voluntary resignation accepted and name removed from roll of attorneys.

Present — Centra, J.E, Peradotto, Lindley, Whalen and DeJoseph, JJ. (Filed June 10, 2014.)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eric A. Stevens, Appellant.

[665 NYS2d 860]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Eugene Oliver, J.), rendered July 11, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of manslaughter in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 8V3 to 25 years, unanimously affirmed.

On the facts of this case, defendant was not entitled to a justification charge. However, the court gave the charge and its erroneous instruction to the jury concerning the duty to retreat does not warrant reversal. There is no reasonable possibility that the jury would have accepted defendant’s justification defense but for the erroneous charge *(see, People v Cox,*203 AD2d 7, *lv denied*83 NY2d 1003). Defendant’s own recitation of the facts showed that a threat of deadly physical force was not imminent and further indicates he was the initial and only aggressor. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Rubin, Tom, Mazzarelli and Colabella, JJ.
#### Florencio AROCHO, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CENTRAL STATES SOUTHEAST AND SOUTHWEST AREAS PENSION FUND, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 07-15340.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

May 7, 2008.

Edward Randolph Gay, Law Firm of Edward R. Gay, P.A., Orlando, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Francis J. Carey, Central States Legal Department, Rosemont, IL, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before CARNES and MARCUS, Circuit Judges, and DUBOSE,* District Judge.

*

 Honorable Kristi DuBose, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Alabama, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED for exactly those reasons set out in that court’s order of October 9, 2007.1

1

. This case was originally scheduled for oral argument, but the panel unanimously determined that it could and should be decided without argument. See 11th Cir.R.34-3(f).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                             136
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   136
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              900
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,202
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,966)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       136
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,295
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,295)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,295)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,295)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.00)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.1





CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL 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 Royster-Clark, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Francis P. Jenkins, Jr., Chief Executive 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 requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchanges 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/    FRANCIS P. JENKINS, JR.Francis P. Jenkins, Jr.Chief Executive Officer


November 14, 2002
An official website of the United States governmentHere’s how you knowHere’s how you know**Official websites use .gov**A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
				**Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**A **lock**(Locked padlock icon) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.Federal Maritime Commission



SearchFederal Maritime Commission



Menu
				Close
							AboutComplaints and AssistanceLicensing and CertificationProceedingsDatabases and PublicationsNews and Advisories



Search Home
 Complaints and Assistance
 Household Goods Shipment
 On this page
Tips For a Successful Move
Planning Your Move
Moving Tips
Service Request Form



Are you moving overseas? Here are some tips to protect your property. The FMC encourages you to protect their possessions by taking the following steps when shipping their goods overseas via ocean.







Tips For a Successful Move


Work with a licensed and registered moving company



Request a quote completed after a visual inspection of your goods.



Read and understand all of the terms and conditions of your moving contract.



Planning Your Move


International Moving Checklist



Moving Dos and Don’ts



Important Paperwork



Moving Tips


Hiring a Reputable HHG Mover



Packing for an International Move



Shipping Your Vehicle Overseas



Shipping Small Packages



Service Request Form


When requesting assistance, **please complete the appropriate form, add any supporting documentation, and submit it to complaints@fmc.gov.**



Dispute Resolution Service Request – Household Goods (FMC-33) [PDF, 378 KB] Return to top
    
    
    
    **FMC Information**
    
    
    
    About the FMC
    
    
    
    Employment Opportunities
    
    
    
    Site Policies
    
    
    
    FOIA
    
    
    
    **Government Information**
    
    
    
    Inspector General
    
    
    
    U.S. Office of Special Counsel
    
    
    
    Open Government at the FMC
    
    
    
    USA.gov
    
    
    
    Federal Maritime Commission
    
    
    Our mission is to **ensure a competitive and reliable** **international ocean transportation supply system** that supports the U.S. economy and protects the public from unfair and deceptive practices.
    
    
    
    X
    
    YouTube
    
    LinkedIn800 North Capitol Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20573inquiries@fmc.gov
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

J.B., FATHER OF M.B., A CHILD,

Appellant, 

v.

Case No. 5D22-2486

LT Case No. 2019-DP-56

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, 

Appellee. 

________________________________/ 

Decision filed March 17, 2023

Appeal from the Circuit Court

for Flagler County, 

Christopher A. France, Judge.

Audrie M. Harris, of Audrie M. Harris, 

P.A., Gainesville, for Appellant.

Rachel Batten, of Children’s Legal 

Services, Brooksville, for Appellee, 

Department of Children and Families. 

Sara Elizabeth Goldfarb, Statewide 

Director of Appeals, and Caitlin E. 

Burke, Senior Attorney, of Guardian 

ad Litem, Tallahassee, for Guardian 

Ad Litem Program. 

PER CURIAM. 

AFFIRMED. 

WALLIS, MACIVER and KILBANE, JJ., concur.