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

No. 05-76331.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.*

Filed Nov. 2, 2010.

Edgardo Quintanilla, Esq., Sherman Oaks, CA, for Petitioner.

CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Michael P. Lindemann, Esq., Edward J. Duffy, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Andres Barraza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen and remand and dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying his motion to reconsider her order denying his special motion to seek relief under former section 212(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (repealed 1996). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider or reopen and review de novo claims of due process violations. *See Cano-Merida v. INS,*311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The agency acted within its discretion in denying Barraza’s motion to reconsider because Barraza is not eligible to file a special motion to seek relief under former section 212(c). *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.44(k)(2) (individuals issued a final order of deportation who then illegally return to the United States are ineligible to file a special motion for relief under former section 212(c)); see *also Monet v. INS,*791 F.2d 752, 753 (9th Cir.1986) (“Admission is not lawful if it is regular only in form.”).

The BIA acted within its discretion in denying as untimely Barraza’s motion to reopen and remand because the motion was filed more than ten years after his removal order became final, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Barraza did not show that he acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling, *see Singh v. Gonzales,*491 F.3d 1090, 1096-97 (9th Cir.2007). Moreover, because Barraza failed to demonstrate a “gross miscarriage of justice” in the prior proceeding, he may not at this point collaterally attack his 1992 deportation order. *See Hernandez-Almanza v. INS,*547 F.2d 100, 102-08 (9th Cir.1976); *see also Avila-Sanchez v. Mukasey,*509 F.3d 1037, 1040-41 (9th Cir.*3212007) (construing the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen as a “refus[al] to allow a collateral attack on the prior proceeding”).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings. *See Ekimian v. INS,*303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002).

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.
#### Mae Ann GILBERT, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Richard P. Kelly, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LaSALLE BANK CORPORATION et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 09-0451-cv.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Sept. 16, 2010.

*539Mae Ann Gilbert, Forest Hills, NY, pro se.

Lyle Stewart Zuckerman, Vedder Price P.C., New York, NY, for Defendant-Ap-pellee LaSalle Bank Corporation.

Patrick W. Begos, Begos Horgan & Brown, Westport, CT, for Defendant-Ap-pellee Unum Provident Life Insurance Company.

PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, B.D. PARKER, PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.

*SUMMARY ORDER*

Plaintiff, Mae Ann Gilbert, *pro se,*appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Kaplan, ./.). Gilbert asserted claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 against Unum Provident Life Insurance Company, LaSalle Bank Corporation, and various employees of each. Her claims against Unum were dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and her claims against LaSalle on summary judgment. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the case’s procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

“We review *de novo*a district court’s dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), construing the complaint liberally, accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true, and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs favor.” *Chambers v. Time*Warner, *Inc.,*282 F.3d 147, *540152 (2d Cir.2002). We review orders granting summary judgment *de novo*as well, examining whether “the moving party show[ed] that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” *Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P.,*321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir.2003).

After *de novo*review, we conclude for substantially the same reasons as the district court (which adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Report *&*Recommendation) that Gilbert did not demonstrate that Unum failed to fulfill its fiduciary duty. The duty to notify Richard Kelly of his life insurance conversion rights did not fall on Unum. We further conclude, for substantially the same reasons as the district court (which adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Report & Recommendation), that LaSalle fulfilled its obligation under the summary plan description to notify Kelly of his conversion rights. *See Howard v. Gleason Corp.,*901 F.2d 1154, 1159-61 (2d Cir.1990) (holding that a correct statement of the beneficiary’s rights, consistent with the summary plan description, satisfied the fiduciary’s disclosure obligations).

Finding no merit in Gilbert’s remaining arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.
#### Michael P. EDWARDS, Claimant-Appellant, v. Eric K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 2013-7022.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Dec. 12, 2013.

Kenneth M. Carpenter, Carpenter, Chartered, of Topeka, Kansas, argued for claimant-appellant.

Elizabeth M. Hosford, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. On the brief were Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Martin F. Hockey, Jr., Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief were David J. Barrans, Deputy Assistant General Counsel and Martie Adelman, Attorney, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, DC. Of counsel was Brian D. *999Griffin, Attorney, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, DC.

Before RADER, Chief Judge, LOURIE, and PROST, Circuit Judges.

RADER, Chief Judge.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirmed the Board of Veterans’ Appeals’ determination that Michael P. Edwards’ October 17, 2007 purported Notice of Disagreement was invalid under pertinent VA regulations. Because Mr. Edwards seeks review of issues of fact and the application of law to fact beyond this court’s statutory jurisdiction, 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2), this court dismisses the appeal.

DISMISSED
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Applicants March 14, 2022","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"1DPdGwFN1M\"><a href=\"\/oti\/applicants-march-14-2022\/\">Applicants March 14, 2022<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/oti\/applicants-march-14-2022\/embed\/#?secret=1DPdGwFN1M\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Applicants March 14, 2022” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"1DPdGwFN1M\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Letter from Commissioner William Doyle to Royal Caribbean International President and CEO Adam Goldstein","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"088qYRQQNv\"><a href=\"\/letter-from-commissioner-william-doyle-to-royal-caribbean-international-president-and-ceo-adam-goldstein\/\">Letter from Commissioner William Doyle to Royal Caribbean International President and CEO Adam Goldstein<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/letter-from-commissioner-william-doyle-to-royal-caribbean-international-president-and-ceo-adam-goldstein\/embed\/#?secret=088qYRQQNv\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Letter from Commissioner William Doyle to Royal Caribbean International President and CEO Adam Goldstein” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"088qYRQQNv\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
#### Douglas B. STALLEY, on behalf of the UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. REGENCY HOSPITAL COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation; Regency Hospital Company, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; Regency Hospitals, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Appellees.

No. 07-2578.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: May 16, 2008.

Filed: May 23, 2008.

Susan N. Estes, Brian David Reddick, Wilkes & McHugh, Little Rock, AR, Kathleen Clark Knight, Wilkes & McHugh, Tampa, FL, for Appellant.

Donald H. Henry, Mitchell & Williams, Little Rock, AR, for Appellees.

Before WOLLMAN, BRIGHT, and JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judges.

[UNPUBLISHED]

PER CURIAM.

Douglas Stalley appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of his action to recover damages allegedly owed to the United States for violations of the Medicare Secondary Payer statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1395y (MSP). This court addressed a similar *706appeal brought by Stalley in *Stalley v. Catholic Health Initiatives,*509 F.3d 517, 519 (8th Cir.2007), and concluded that the suit authorized by the MSP was a “private cause of action, which‘requires plaintiff to have standing in his own right, rather than a *qui tam*statute, which allows plaintiff to assert injury to the United States.” The court’s dismissal was proper. Accordingly, we affirm. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

________________

No. 16

- 2395

________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

ANDRE EVANS,

Appellant

________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Ea stern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Criminal Action No. 2

- 15

- cr

- 00423

- 001)

District Judge: Honorable Harvey Bartle, III

________________

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

March 27, 2017

Before: AMBRO, VANASKIE, and RESTREPO

, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed May 2, 2017 )

ORDER AMENDING NOT PRECEDENTIAL OPINION

IT IS NOW ORDERED that the Not Precedential Opinion in the above case filed

May 2, 2017 , be amended as follows:

On page 4

, Footnote 1, ad d the following sentence at the end of the paragraph

.

“ Evans has failed to raise, and thereby waived, any argument that § 3584(a) and

§ 5G1.3(d) apply to him because he is subject to an undischarged term of imprisonment

under Pennsylvania law, under which the parole board has the authority to order him

recommitted to prison. ”

By the Court,

/s/ Thomas L. Ambro, Circuit Judge

Dated: May 4, 2017
[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 BF Acquisition Group III,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending July 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, William Colucci, Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
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 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.

Dated: June 16, 2004

                               /s/ William Colucci
                               ------------------------------
                               William Colucci, Treasurer
                               BF Acquisition Group III, Inc.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"License Applicants – July 17, 2015","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"sgJWEnSQqt\"><a href=\"\/oti\/license-applicants-july-17-2015\/\">License Applicants – July 17, 2015<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/oti\/license-applicants-july-17-2015\/embed\/#?secret=sgJWEnSQqt\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“License Applicants – July 17, 2015” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"sgJWEnSQqt\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
Exhibit 32.2


                 Certification of Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended October 31, 2006 (the "Report") of Nortia Capital Partners, Inc.
(the "Registrant"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof, I, Bruce A. Hall, the Chief Financial
Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my
knowledge, that:

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

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


/s/ Bruce A. Hall
-------------------------
Name:  Bruce A. Hall
Date:  December 11, 2006
EXHIBIT 31.02

CERTIFICATIONOF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(A)

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE
ACT AND SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, John M. Thompson, Chief Financial Officer of the registrant,
certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of KANA Software, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including
its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting.

5. The registrants other
certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing
the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal
control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting.



|                    |  |                                         
|------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------
|Dated: July 6, 2006 |  | /s/ John M. Thompson                    
|                    |  | John M. Thompson Chief Financial Officer