alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Marco Antonio GALDINO, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-72451.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted May 7, 2008.

Filed May 19, 2008.

Kari E. Hong, Law Offices of Kari E. Hong, Portland, OR, for Petitioner.

District Director, Office of the District Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Phoenix, *AZ,*Lindsay B. Glauner, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

*473Before: TALLMAN, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

1. We lack jurisdiction to review the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of Marco Galdino’s (Galdino) untimely asylum application. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3). Any potential constitutional claims presented by the petition remain unexhausted. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). Galdino’s claim that “extraordinary circumstances” justified the untimely asylum application requires us to decide disputed questions of fact. We therefore dismiss this portion of Galdino’s petition. See *Ramadan v. Gonzales,*479 F.3d 646, 650-654 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam).

2. We deny Galdino’s petition for review of the BIA’s decision affirming the IJ’s denial of Galdino’s application for withholding of removal. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s and IJ’s findings that Galdino failed to establish a “clear probability of persecution.” *See Halaim v. INS,*358 F.3d 1128, 1132 (9th Cir.2004). Galdino failed to establish that it is “more likely than not” that he would be persecuted if forced to return to Brazil. *Popova v. INS,*273 F.3d 1251, 1260 (9th Cir.2001). We therefore deny this portion of Galdino’s petition.

3. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s and the IJ’s denial of relief under CAT. Galdino failed to demonstrate that “it is more likely than not that he ... would be tortured” with the acquiescence of the Brazilian government. *See Zheng v. Ashcroft,*332 F.3d 1186, 1194 (9th Cir.2003) (citations omitted). We therefore deny this portion of Galdino’s petition.

DISMISSED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### ALABAMA MILLS, Inc., et al., Appellants, v. James P. MITCHELL, Secretary of Labor, et al., Appellees.

No. 13597.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Submitted April 2, 1957.

Decided April 26, 1957.

Submitted on the brief by Messrs. Llewellyn C. Thomas, Washington, D. C., and W. Glen Harlan, Atlanta, Ga., for appellants.

Submitted on the brief by Asst. Atty. Gen. (George C. Doub, Messrs. Paul Sweeney and Arthur H. Fribourg, Attys., Dept, of Justice, and Miss Bessie Margo-lin, Asst. Sol., U. S. Dept, of Labor, for appellee Secretary of Labor. Mr. Edward H. Hickey, Atty., Dept, of Justice, at the time record was filed, also entered an appearance for appellee Secretary of Labor.

Submitted on the brief by Messrs. Arthur J. Goldberg and David E. Feller, Washington, D. C., for appellee Textile Workers Union of America, CIO.

Submitted on the brief by Mr. John W. Cragun, Washington, D. C., for appellee National Association of Cotton Manufacturers, and certain other appellees.

Before EDGERTON, Chief Judge, and WASHINGTON and DANAHER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed, Judge Washington dissenting. Each member of the court adheres to the views he expressed in Mitchell v. Covington Mills, Inc., 97 U.S.App.D.C. 165, 229 F.2d 506.

Affirmed.
#### Santa Barrera HERNANDEZ; Oscar Daniel Estrada, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-73890.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 16, 2010.*

Filed Nov. 24, 2010.

Santa Barrera Hernandez, Anaheim, CA, pro se.

Paul Fiorino, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

*110MEMORANDUM **

Santa Barrera Hernandez and Oscar Daniel Estrada, pro se natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen proceedings due to ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo questions of law, including claims of due process violations. *Mohammed v. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioners’ January 28, 2008, motion to reopen for failure to show prejudice. *See Iturribarria v. INS,*321 F.3d 889, 899-900 (9th Cir.2003) (prejudice results when the performance of counsel “was so inadequate that it may have affected the outcome of the proceedings”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Petitioners’ contention that the BIA failed to consider the evidence they submitted with their motion to reopen is belied by the record.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cirilo Lopez ROMERO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-6392.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 22, 2008.

Decided: May 30, 2008.

Cirilo Lopez Romero, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Cirilo Lopez Romero seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Romero has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Romero’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
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
  (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 Company.
 Date: October 26, 2010
    By:
    /s/ Fernando L. FernandezFERNANDO L. FERNANDEZSenior Vice President  Finance, Chief Financial
Officer, Treasurer and Secretary
#### Melvin Wilfredo Alvarado PONCE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-72096.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 16, 2010.*

Filed Nov. 19, 2010.

Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Melvin Wilfredo Alvarado Ponce, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, *Khan v. Holder,*584 F.3d 773, 776 (9th Cir.2009), and we grant the petition for review and remand.

*145Because Alvarado Ponce was charged as inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) upon his return to the United States, the agency erred in finding that he was ineligible for former section 212(c) relief. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (repealed 1996); *Abebe v. Mukasey,*554 F.3d 1203, 1205 (9th Cir.2009) (en banc) (per curiam) (“Under its plain language, section 212(c) gives the Attorney General discretion to grant lawful permanent residents relief only from *inadmissibility*— not deportation.”) (emphasis in original). We remand to the agency to allow Alvarado Ponce to apply for former section 212(c) relief.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
STAIB OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A14-0354 Inre Petition for DisciplinaryAction against Joan LaRae Meidinger, aMinnesotaAttorney, Registration No. 386892. ORDER OFFICE OF APPELLATE COURTS 

### JUN**~**

### t·2014 

# FILED

The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility has filed a petition for disciplinary action alleging that respondent Joan La Rae Meidinger ·; committed professional misconduct warranting public discipline, namely, failure to

cooperate with the Director, in violation ofMinn. R. Prof. Conduct 8.l(b) and Rule 25(a),
·: Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR). Respondent did not respond to the petition. On April 2, 2014, we deemed the allegations in the petition admitted. 

### See Rule 13(b), RLPR. The parties were invitedto submitbriefs onthe appropriate discipline to be imposed; however, only the Director filed a briefon the issue ofthe appropriate discipline. Basedupon all the files, .records, andproceedings herein, ITIS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Respondent Joan La Rae Meidinger is indefinitely suspended from the practice oflaw, effective 14 days from the date ofthe filing ofthis order, with no right to petition for reinstatement for 6 months;

I2. Respondent may petition for reinstatement pursuant to Rule 18(a)-(d), RLPR. Reinstatement is conditioned on successful completion of the professional responsibility portion of the state bar examination and satisfaction of continuing legal education requirements, pursuantto Rule 18(e), RLPR; and 3. Respondent shall comply with Rule 26, RLPR (requiring notice of suspension to clients, opposing counsel, and tribunals), and shall pay $900 in costs pursuant to Rule 24, RLPR. Dated: June 26, 2014 BYTHE COURT:

Associate Justice

2
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 Health and Human Services

###### Food and Drug Administration

          - [Docket No. 01F-0047]

# AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

# ACTION: 

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that the National Fisheries Institute has filed a petition proposing that the food additive regulations be amended to provide for the safe use of ionizing radiation for control of foodborne pathogens in crustaceans and processed crustaceans.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Lane A. Highbarger, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-                              ( print page 9087)                            206), Food and Drug Administration, 200 C St. SW., Washington, DC  20204, 202-418-3032.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (sec. 409(b)(5) (21 U.S.C. 348(b)(5))), notice is given that a food additive petition (FAP 1M4727) has been filed by the National Fisheries Institute, 1901 North Fort Myer Dr., Arlington, VA  22209.  The petition proposes to amend the food additive regulations in Part 179                     *Irradiation in the Production, Processing and Handling of Food*                     (21 CFR part 179) to provide for the safe use of ionizing radiation for control of foodborne pathogens in raw-, frozen-, cooked-, partially cooked-, shelled-, or dried-crustaceans, or cooked- or ready-to-cook crustaceans processed with batter, breading, spices, or small amounts of other food ingredients.                

The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.32(j) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.  Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

Dated: January 11, 2001.

Alan M. Rulis,

Director, Office of Premarket Approval, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.

[FR Doc. 01-3095  Filed 2-5-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S
FacebookTwitterYouTubeEmail
CareersFAQsContact UsSite Map

HOW CAN WE HELP YOU?
Search for:
HomeAbout UsMission & ValuesThe Agency helps build better relationships through joint problem-solving and constructive responses to inevitable conflict.Our HistoryAgency DepartmentsOffice of the DirectorOffice of Procurement and Operational SupportOffice of Human ResourcesOffice of BudgetOffice of Information TechnologyOffice of FinanceOffice of the General CounselOffice of Field Operations (Regional)Office of Client ServicesOffice of Field Operations (National)Office of National ProjectsOffice of Conflict Management & Prevention/InternationalCenter for Conflict Resolution EducationOffice of Field AdministrationOffice of Policy and StrategyOffice of Congressional and Public AffairsOffice of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO)LocationServicesResolving Labor-Management DisputesCollective Bargaining MediationGrievance MediationAlternative Bargaining ProcessesTechnology Assisted Group Solutions -TAGSBuilding Labor-Management RelationshipsEffective Contract AdministrationEffective  CommunicationsLabor-Management Partnership BuildingOrganizational DevelopmentRepairing Broken RelationshipsAlternative Dispute Resolution for GovernmentWorkplace MediationAdministrative Program DisputesFacilitationDispute Resolution Systems DesignRegulatory NegotiationsPublic Policy DialoguesEducation and OutreachSkills Development TrainingFMCS InstituteFMCS Collaboration with UniversitiesInternational ServicesConferences and WorkshopsArbitrationRequesting a PanelArbitration Policies and ProceduresInformation for FMCS Roster ArbitratorsInformation on Joining the Arbitrator RosterArbitration Contact InformationResourcesForms & Applications for FMCS ServicesMediation Agreement FormsArbitrationNotice to FMCS of Upcoming Collective Bargaining (F-7)Labor-Management Grants ProgramFOIA RequestsDocuments and DataMulti-MediaListen to the Conflict Resolutionary PodcastFMCS 101 Video SeriesSpeeches & PresentationsFAQsNLMC InfoVirtual Services
Search for:  1995
Home/Timeline 1990-2013/1995 Previous			Next
1995										FMCS co-sponsors the 10th International Industrial Relations Research Associations Seminar in Washington.
D2015-06-18T12:46:22-04:00													Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!
FacebookTwitterEmail Copyright 2020 FMCS | All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy  |  EEO/No FEAR Act  |  PAR  |  Terms of Use  |  FOIA  |  Accessibility |  SORNs
FacebookTwitterYouTubeEmail
# WORK ZONE SAFETY PRESS RELEASE: TEXAS 

**FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: [Date]**

**CONTACT: [Name, Phone Number, E-Mail]**

**[Organization] Supports the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Work Zone Safety Outreach Campaign in Texas****

**[City, State]** – **[Organization]** announced today it is joining efforts to help reduce large truck crashes in works zones by supporting a state-wide work zone safety outreach campaign led by the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). **[Organization]** calls on all drivers to “share work zones safely” by staying alert, obeying traffic signs and allowing all vehicles extra space while driving through Texas’ many active work zones.

Throughout the campaign FMCSA will amplify safety messages through outlets such as billboards and audio ads, reaching commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers traveling through work zones including:

• Loop 410 North to FM 3009 and FM 1103 in San Antonio

• I-635/I-30 interchange from U 75 to I-30 in Dallas

• SH 170 to I-35/I-35W Split in Dallas/Fort Worth

• I-45 from downtown Houston to Beltway 8 North

• I-20 between Midland and Odessa 

“We are pleased to be a part of an effort to remind not only CMV drivers, but all those on Texas’ roadways to slow down and pay attention when driving through work zones,” said **[spokesperson].** “There is a clear need to raise awareness on work zone safety. We’re proud of the great state of Texas for many reasons–but we still need everyone to do their part to prevent roadway crashes.” 

According to TxDOT, Texas has more interstate mileage than any other state, and 1 in 16 Texans are employed by the trucking industry. Of the nearly 26,357 crashes that occurred in work zones across Texas in 2021, 15% involved a CMV. These are just a few statistics showing the importance of work zone safety outreach efforts in Texas, for the collective effort to reduce work zone crashes and save lives. 

For more information on work zone safety, visit the campaign website.

**###**

[INSERT BOILERPLATE]

# image1.png
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM ABLE TELCOM
HOLDING CORP. CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1998
<CASH>                                       6,053,814
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               24,745,172
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  3,578,516
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,667,937
<PP&E>                                      38,426,494
<DEPRECIATION>                              10,636,831
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              83,067,629
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       30,943,897
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,756
<OTHER-SE>                                  23,615,319
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                83,067,629
<SALES>                                     56,819,639    
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            56,819,639
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               53,870,111
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (359,413)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             793,878
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,515,063
<INCOME-TAX>                                   956,758
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,515,063
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,165,024
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.09
        

</TABLE>
#### Angel Gabriel LEMUS-HERRERA, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 10-60420

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 23, 2010.

Angel Gabriel Lemus-Herrera, Inglewood, CA, pro se.

*916Joseph Anthony O’Connell, Esq., Tangerlia Cox, Karen Y. Stewart, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before WIENER, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Angel Gabriel Lemus-Herrera (Lemus), a native and citizen of El Salvador, was ordered deported *in absentia*by an immigration judge (IJ) when Lemus failed to appear at his scheduled hearing in February 2006. Lemus filed a motion to reopen in July 2009, which the IJ denied. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s decision without opinion. Lemus has timely petitioned for review of the BIA’s order.

We review the denial of a motion to reopen “under a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” *Zhao v. Gonzales,*404 F.3d 295, 303 (5th Cir.2005). The BIA’s decision must be upheld as long as it is not “capricious, racially invidious, utterly without foundation in the evidence, or otherwise so irrational that it is arbitrary rather than the result of any perceptible rational approach.” *Singh v. Gonzales,*436 F.3d 484, 487 (5th Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Lemus contends that the *in absentia*deportation order was improperly issued because he did not receive notice of his hearing. He asserts that his failure to receive the notice of his hearing was due to error on the part of immigration officials or the immigration court. Because Lemus failed to present these issues to the BIA they are unexhausted, and we lack jurisdiction to consider them. *See Roy v. Ashcroft,*389 F.3d 132, 137 (5th Cir.2004) (per curiam); *Wang v. Ashcroft,*260 F.3d 448, 452-53 (5th Cir.2001).

Noting the summary disposition of his appeal, Lemus argues that the BIA did not sufficiently articulate the reasons for denying relief. The BIA is permitted to affirm, without opinion, a decision of an immigration judge. *See 8*C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4). We have previously determined that the BIA’s summary affirmance procedures “do not deprive this court of a basis for judicial review and that the procedures do not violate due process.” *Soadjede v. Ashcroft,*324 F.3d 830, 832-33 (5th Cir.2003) (per curiam). Lemus has failed to show error.

The petition for review is DENIED.

*

 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.