alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 6, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13566-13567]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-5361]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[AZ-030-3130 EU; AZA-29652]


Notice of Realty Action Direct Sale of Public Lands in Mohave 
County, Arizona

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of realty action, direct sale.

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

SUMMARY: The following public lands have been found suitable for a 
direct sale under Section 214 of the Federal Land Policy and Management 
Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2750; 43 U.S.C. 1713), at not less than the 
estimated fair market value of $1,000. The land will not be offered for 
sale for at least 60 days after the date of this notice.

T. 24 N., R. 13 W., Gila and Salt River Meridian, Arizona

Section 34: E\1/2\E\1/2\NE\1/4\SE\1/4\NW\1/4\, Consisting of 1.25 
acres.

    The land described above is hereby segregated from appropriation 
under the public land laws including the mining laws, pending 
disposition of this action 270 days from the date of publication of 
this notice, whichever occurs first.
    This land will be offered to a private landowner due to the need to 
resolve an inadvertent unauthorized use or occupancy of the lands, and 
must be for

[[Page 13567]]

not less than the appraised value specified above.
    The private landowner will make an application for conveyance of 
those mineral interests offered under the authority of Section 209(b) 
of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2757; 
43 U.S.C. 1719). A nonrefundable fee of $50 will be required from the 
private landowner for purchase of the mineral interests. Those mineral 
interests to be conveyed simultaneously with the sale of the land have 
been determined to have no known mineral value.
    The conveyance document, when issued, will contain certain 
reservations to the United States and will be subject to any existing 
rights-of-way and any other valid existing rights. Detailed information 
concerning this sale is available for review at the Kingman Field 
Office, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 2475 Beverly Avenue, Kingman, 
Arizona 86401, (520) 692-4416.
    For a period of 45 days from the date of publication of this notice 
in the Federal Register, interested parties may submit comments to the 
Field Manager, Kingman Field Office, at the above address. In the 
absence of timely objections, this proposal shall become the final 
determination of the Department of the Interior.

    Dated: February 22, 2001.
John Christensen,
Field Manager, Kingman Field Office.
[FR Doc. 01-5361 Filed 3-5-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-32-U
Union Calendar No. 456

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 2614

[Report No. 103–811]

A BILL

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey

poses.School District, Wyoming, and for other purtion project, Wyoming, to the Big Horn Countycertain lands of the Shoshone Federal reclamaOCTOBER 3, 1994

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the

State of the Union and ordered to be printed
IB

Union Calendar No. 456

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 2614

[Report No. 103–811]

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain lands of the Shoshone

Federal reclamation project, Wyoming, to the Big Horn County School

District, Wyoming, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 1, 1993

Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming introduced the following bill; which was referred to

the Committee on Natural Resources

OCTOBER 3, 1994

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union

and ordered to be printed

A BILL

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain

lands of the Shoshone Federal reclamation project, Wyoming, to the Big Horn County School District, Wyoming,

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,
2

•HR 2614 RH

1 SECTION 1. CONVEYANCE.

2 The Secretary of the Interior shall convey, by quit

3 claim deed, to the Big Horn County School District, Wyo4 ming, all right, title, and interest of the United States in

5 and to the following described lands in Big Horn County,

6 Wyoming: Lot 18 of Block 22, Lots 1–6 of Block 25, all

7 of Block 21, and all within the town of Frannie, Wyoming,

in the S1⁄2NW1⁄4NW1⁄4 and N1⁄2SW1⁄4NW1 8 ⁄4 of T. 58N.,

9 R. 97 W., Big Horn County.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-10407 Conference Calendar

__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MAGDELINA GARCIA, a/k/a Magdelina Meyer, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:94-CR-101-A(3)

- - - - - - - - - - October 31, 1996 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Magdelina Garcia argues that the district court lacked authority to order her deported under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d). In relevant part, § 3583(d) provides that "if an alien defendant is subject to deportation, the court may provide, as a condition of supervised release, that he be deported and remain outside the United States, and may order that he be delivered to a duly authorized immigration officer for such deportation." 18 U.S.C.No. 95-10407 -2- § 3583(d). Although the district court could have provided that deportation be a condition of supervised release, the district court lacked authority under § 3583(d) to order the defendant deported without a deportation hearing. See United States v. Quaye , 57 F.3d 447, 449-51 (5th Cir. 1995). The 1994 amendment to 8 U.S.C. § 1252a(d), which authorizes district courts to order aliens deported who have committed aggravated felonies is inapplicable because judicial deportation was not requested by the Attorney General. See § 1252a(d). Accordingly, we MODIFY the judgment as follows and AFFIRM as modified: As a condition of supervised release, upon completion of her term of imprisonment the defendant is to be surrendered to a duly-authorized immigration official for deportation in accordance with the established procedures provided by the Immigration and Naturalization Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq . As a further condition of supervised release, if ordered deported, defendant shall remain outside the United States.
MODIFIED AND AFFIRMED.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**446 CAF 14-00975**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF DARIO R. PEREZ, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

KARIN C. JOHNSON, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

DARIO R. PEREZ, PETITIONER-APPELLANT PRO SE.

WELCH & ZINK, CORNING (COLLEEN G. ZINK OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Steuben County (Marianne Furfure, A.J.), entered October 15, 2013 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4. The order denied petitioner’s objection to the order of the Support Magistrate.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, petitioner father appeals from an order denying his objection to the order of the Support Magistrate that denied his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation. We affirm. The Support Magistrate’s findings are entitled to great deference ( see Matter of Fragola v Alfaro , 45 AD3d 684, 685), and we conclude that the record supports the determination that the father “failed to demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances that would justify a downward modification of his support obligation because he [did not present sufficient] ‘evidence establishing that he diligently sought re-employment commensurate with his former employment’ ” ( Matter of Greene v Hanson , 100 AD3d 1558, 1558; see Matter of Leonardo v Leonardo , 94 AD3d 1452, 1453, lv denied 19 NY3d 807). We have considered the father’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit.

Entered: May 8, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
#### SYNQOR, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ARTESYN TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and ASTEC America, Inc., Defendants-Appellants, and Bel Fuse, Inc., Defendant-Appellant, and Cherokee International Corp. and Lineage Power Corp., Defendants-Appellants, and Delta Electronics, Inc., Delta Products Corp., Murata Electronics North America, Inc., Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Murata Power Solutions, Inc., and Power-One, Inc., Defendants-Appellants.

Nos. 2011-1191, 2011-1192, 2011-1193, 2011-1194.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Feb. 1, 2011.

Donald R. Dunner, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Washington, DC, Robert J. McAughan Jr., Jeffrey A. Andrews, Locke, Lord Bissell & Liddell, LLP, Houston, TX, Erik R. Puknys, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Palo Alto, CA, Steven N. Williams, Kennedy, Clark & *322Williams, P.C., Dallas, TX, Avin Sharma, Vasquez Benisek & Lindgren, LLP, Lafayette, CA, Alan D. Smith, Fish & Richardson, P.C., Boston, MA, for Defendants-Appellants.

Constantine L. Trela Jr., Thomas D. Rein, Robert N. Hochman, Sidley Austin LLP, Chicago, IL, Michael D. Hatcher, Sidley Austin LLP, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Before LINN, Circuit Judge.

ON MOTION

ORDER

Bel Fuse submits a motion for a stay, pending appeal, of the injunction entered by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

Upon consideration thereof,

It Is Ordered That:

SynQor, Inc. is directed to respond no later than February 7, 2011. The injunction is temporarily stayed to the extent that it applies to products specified on page 13 of Bel Fuse’s motion that Bel Fuse asserts are sold to Cisco Systems, Inc., pending this court’s consideration of the papers submitted.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
<CURRENCY>                    U.S Dollars

<S>                                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                          9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                      JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                         JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                           MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                                  1
<CASH>                                                       1,388
<SECURITIES>                                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                               15,918
<ALLOWANCES>                                                  (801)
<INVENTORY>                                                    940
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                            18,799
<PP&E>                                                       5,570
<DEPRECIATION>                                              (1,162)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                              31,300
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                       17,957
<BONDS>                                                      7,754<F1>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                      0
<COMMON>                                                        41
<OTHER-SE>                                                   3,676
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                31,300
<SALES>                                                     60,064
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                            60,314
<CGS>                                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                               59,826
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                               111<F2>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                             890
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                               (513)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                           (513)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  0
<CHANGES>                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                                  (513)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                   (.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                 (.14)
<FN>
<F1>Mortgage And Similar Debt
<F2>Minority Interest
</FN>



</TABLE>
litton logo
              4828
      Loop Central DriveHouston
      TX 77081Telephone  713-966-8966Fax  713-218-4595www.littonloan.com







SERVICER
COMPLIANCE STATEMENT
  C-BASS 2007-CB4
Trust
 The
undersigned officer of Litton Loan Servicing LP provides the Annual Statement as
to Compliance as required by the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above
referenced security and certifies that (i) a review of the activities of the
Servicer during such preceding calendar year (or such shorter period in the case
of the first such report) and of performance under this Agreement has been made
under my supervision, and (ii) to the best of my knowledge, based on such
review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under this Agreement in
all material respects for 2007, except as disclosed below:
 Loan
Buyouts from Pool Assets- 1122(d)(4)(iii)
 Certain
loan buyouts from pool assets were not made within timeframes established in the
transaction agreements.
  The
Servicer has implemented the following remediation procedures:
  Loan
Buyouts from Pool Assets — 1122(d)(4)(iii)
  The
Servicer is in the process of incorporating automation that will calculate the
calendar month in which a loan can be bought out of individual securities based
on the requirements in the respective transaction agreements. This automation
will not allow a loan to be removed from a security unless it is in the
timeframe allowed in the respective transaction agreements. The Servicer expects
to have this automation in place at or around the end of the first quarter
2008.
 Date:   March
3, 2008






/s/
Elizabeth Folk


Elizabeth
Folk


Senior
Vice President and


Chief
Financial Officer


Litton
Loan Servicing LP








Inv 394 -
Trustee 10K - SC3
#### Horace HOUSTON, Jr., Claimant-Appellant, v. R. James NICHOLSON, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 2007-7098.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 4, 2007.

Horace Houston, Jr., pro se.

Before BRYSON, Circuit Judge, FRIEDMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and PROST, Circuit Judge.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs moves to waive the requirements of Fed. Cir. R. 27(f) and to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Horace Houston, Jr.’s appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Houston did not respond.

Houston appealed to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims from an April 15, 2005, decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals that denied him entitlement to (1) an increased disability rating for his service-connected residuals of fracture, right patella, status post open reduction and internal fixation, currently rated at 30%; (2) an increased initial disability rating in excess of 10% for his service-connected patello-femoral syndrome of the left knee; and (3) an increased initial disability rating in excess of 10% for his service-connected degenerative joint disease of the left hip. The court held that the Board’s degree of disability determinations were factual and plausible in light of the record on appeal.

The Secretary argues that Houston’s informal brief does not raise an issue that falls within this court’s jurisdiction. We agree. Under 38 U.S.C. § 7292, this court has limited jurisdiction over appeals from decisions of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. *See Forshey v. Principi,*284 F.3d 1335, 1338 (Fed.Cir.2002) (en banc). This court “may not review (A) a challenge to a factual determination, or (B) a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2).

*990In his brief, Houston does not raise a constitutional, statutory or regulatory issue. Williams challenges only the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims’ review of the Board’s factual determinations. Thus, this court does not have jurisdiction over the appeal. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The Secretary’s motion to waive the requirements of Fed. Cir. R. 27(f) is granted.

(2) The Secretary’s motion to dismiss is granted.

(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

RONALD EUGENE REYNOLDS,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-15-00375-CR

Appeal from

County Court at Law No. 4

of Montgomery County, Texas

(TC # 15-307891)

O R D E R

The Court has determined that it is necessary to review the original of State’s Exhibits 149 

(Client file for Kalisha Keller), 150 (Client file for George Sanchez), 151 (client file for Carolina 

Castelan), and 152 (client file for Jose and Destiny Trevino). It is therefore Ordered that Cassandra 

McCoy, Official Court Reporter of the County Court at Law Number Four for Montgomery 

County, Texas, prepare a supplemental Reporter’s Record to include the original of State’s 

Exhibits 149, 150, 151, and 152 and forward the same to this Court on or before June 26, 2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2017.

PER CURIAM 

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
#### Johny RACHMAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 09-71960.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 14, 2010.*

Filed Jan. 6, 2011.

Kathleen Siok-Sien Koh, Esquire, Law Office of Kathleen S. Koh, Whittier, CA, for Petitioner.

Theodore Charles Hirt, OIL, Janice Kay Redfern, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Johny Rachman, a native and citizen of Indonesia, 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. “[W]e review for whether substantial evidence supports a finding by clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence that [Rachman] abandoned his lawful permanent residence in the United States.” *Khodagholian v. Ashcroft,*335 F.3d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence support’s the agency’s determination that the government met its burden of showing that Rachman lacked a continuous, uninterrupted intention to return to the United States during the eight years he lived in Indonesia. *See Chavez-Ramirez v. INS,*792 F.2d 932, 937-38 (9th Cir.1986) (substantial evidence supported finding abandonment of lawful permanent residence where alien spent two and a half years in country of citizenship after the exigency which caused her *43to return had passed); *cf. Khodagholian,*335 F.3d at 1007-09.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Reginald Bernard MOONEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; Warden, FCI Edgefield, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 09-7804.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 19, 2010.

Decided Jan. 28, 2010.

Reginald Bernard Mooney, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; William Jacob Watkins, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Reginald Bernard Mooney, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2006) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Mooney v. United States,*No. 3:08-cv-03652-PMD-JRM (D.S.C. Sept. 8, 2009).* 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.

*AFFIRMED*

*

 Any issues Mooney seeks to raise other that the applicability of the Supreme Court’s decision in *Watson v. United States,*552 U.S. 74, 128 S.Ct. 579, 169 L.Ed.2d 472 (2007), must be raised in the sentencing court, in a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West Supp. 2009) after obtaining authorization to do so. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) (2006), § 2255(h).