alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5597 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.5597

                     One Hundred Sixteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday,
            the third day of January, two thousand and twenty

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
  305 Northwest 5th Street in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, as the ``Clara 
                      Luper Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CLARA LUPER POST OFFICE BUILDING.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 305 Northwest 5th Street in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, shall 
be known and designated as the ``Clara Luper Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Clara 
Luper Post Office Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY ELEV

 359.86

 359.83

 359.86

 359.83

 359.83

 359.83

 359.83

 359.83

 359.83

 359.83

 359.83

 359.83

 359.83

 359.83

 359.83

 359.83

 359.83

 359.83

 359.83

 359.83

 360.16

 360.00

 359.83

 360.44

 360.41

 360.38

 360.30

 360.22

 360.16

 360.11

 360.44

 527

 525

 527

 525

 525

 525

 525

 525

 525

 525

 525

 525

 525

 525

 525

 525

 525

 525

 525

 525

 548

 537

 525

 568

 566

 564

 558

 552

 548

 545

 568

STORAGE

+10

-2

+2

-2

+0

+0

+0

+0

+0

+0

+0

+0

+0

+0

+0

+0

+0

+0

+0

+0

+23

-11

-12

+43

-2

-2

-6

-6

-4

-3

+23

CHANGE

 208

 277

 277

 293

 288

 273

 267

 253

 184

 4

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 202

 203

 203

 202

 201

 203

 202

 205

 203

 204

 203

 204

 201

 201

 203

 204

 202

 202

 204

 203

 607

 513

 265

 930

 1,206

 1,153

 1,008

 860

 757

 611

 1,142

SPILL

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

OUTLET

OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT

SOUTH SAN JOAQUIN IRRIGATION DISTRICT

TRI DAMS PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

OCTOBER 2014 GOODWIN RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: November 1, 2014

RES.

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS +51 0 13,107 2,324

ACRE-FEET +51 0 25,998 4,610

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

JOINT MAIN CANAL 4,040

SOUTH MAIN CANAL 4,610

 34,648

 517

OUTLET 0

TOTAL 

TULLOCH

RELEASE

 602

 707

 762

 801

 800

 769

 705

 635

 539

 313

 292

 292

 295

 309

 331

 343

 291

 223

 220

 210

 615

 523

 287

 990

 1,213

 1,141

 1,008

 862

 771

 620

 1,147

 18,616

 36,925

JOINT MAIN OPERATED BY SSJID AND OID.

SOUTH MAIN OPERATED BY OID.

JOINT

MAIN

SOUTH

MAIN

SPILL 25,998

 172

 209

 251

 269

 267

 237

 191

 141

 117

 28

 0

 0

 5

 7

 0

 8

 8

 8

 8

 8

 7

 9

 11

 11

 10

 9

 9

 9

 9

 9

 10

 2,037

 4,040

RIVER CANALS
AMENDED AND RESTATED
CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
OF
GSI COMMERCE, INC.
 ARTICLE I
 Corporation
 ARTICLE II
  ARTICLE III
 DGCL
 ARTICLE IV
 Common
Stock
 Board




---



##### 



ARTICLE V
  ARTICLE VI
  ARTICLE VII
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ALPHONSO SANDERS,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 62 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 6th day of July, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.

Justice Mundy did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 218

 223

 231

 241

 260

 287

 288

 292

 299

 308

 317

 342

 340

 349

 370

 383

 407

 426

 453

 480

 520

 562

 573

 592

 607

 636

 655

 675

 691

 705

 718

 210

 214

 209

 226

 231

 241

 237

 251

 236

 250

 235

 230

 249

 266

 260

 258

 286

 273

 349

 369

 357

 378

 417

 438

 457

 480

 508

 505

 485

 520

 591

 213

 219

 224

 232

 243

 258

 266

 266

 266

 273

 274

 285

 293

 314

 314

 328

 350

 345

 381

 405

 414

 448

 481

 500

 512

 535

 554

 559

 581

 618

 635

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JULY 2009 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: August 4, 2009

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

HOLLAND TRACT ON OLD RIVER
### [§2514. Repealed. Pub. L. 91–452, title II, §227(a), Oct. 15, 1970, 84 Stat. 930]

Section, Pub. L. 90–351, title II, §802, June 19, 1968, 82 Stat. 216, provided for immunity of witnesses giving testimony or producing evidence under compulsion in Federal grand jury or court proceedings. Subject matter is covered in sections 6002 and 6003 of this title.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Sections 227(a) and 260 of Pub. L. 91–452 provided for repeal of this section effective four years following sixtieth day after date of enactment of Pub. L. 91–452, which was approved Oct. 15, 1970, such repeal not affecting any immunity to which any individual was entitled under this section by reason of any testimony or other information given before such date. See section 260 of Pub. L. 91–452, set out as an Effective Date; Savings Provision note under section 6001 of this title.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY ELEV

 435.00

 434.42

 433.86

 433.29

 432.67

 432.24

 431.80

 431.34

 430.92

 430.45

 430.03

 429.58

 429.28

 429.06

 428.86

 428.67

 428.38

 428.05

 427.63

 427.29

 427.04

 426.78

 426.56

 426.18

 425.81

 425.39

 424.99

 424.60

 424.23

 423.83

 423.48

 659.2

 653.8

 648.6

 643.4

 637.8

 633.8

 629.8

 625.7

 621.9

 617.7

 613.9

 609.9

 607.2

 605.3

 603.5

 601.8

 599.3

 596.4

 592.7

 589.7

 587.5

 585.3

 583.4

 580.1

 576.9

 573.3

 569.8

 566.5

 563.3

 559.9

 557.0

STORAGE

-4.7

-5.4

-5.2

-5.2

-5.7

-3.9

-4.0

-4.2

-3.8

-4.2

-3.8

-4.0

-2.7

-2.0

-1.8

-1.7

-2.6

-2.9

-3.7

-3.0

-2.2

-2.3

-1.9

-3.3

-3.2

-3.6

-3.4

-3.3

-3.2

-3.4

-3.0

CHANGE

1,405

1,234

839

802

588

1,016

1,052

1,077

1,058

987

827

866

1,422

1,396

1,594

1,425

1,471

960

519

960

1,225

1,442

1,256

810

869

792

838

915

940

766

574

INFLOW

 3,492

 3,691

 3,213

 3,205

 3,208

 2,762

 2,852

 2,934

 2,757

 2,889

 2,509

 2,677

 2,553

 2,167

 2,277

 2,057

 2,554

 2,221

 2,185

 2,309

 2,166

 2,402

 2,048

 2,296

 2,286

 2,433

 2,385

 2,397

 2,356

 2,306

 1,904

POWER

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

SPILL

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

OUTLET

 173

 165

 166

 171

 163

 173

 159

 154

 154

 160

 163

 158

 162

 160

 159

 160

 160

 157

 151

 148

 130

 138

 145

 145

 152

 142

 148

 150

 147

 144

 139

PUMPING

 86

 80

 64

 61

 73

 54

 54

 84

 57

 63

 54

 50

 53

 56

 50

 53

 47

 50

 38

 3

 32

 41

 26

 32

 43

 40

 40

 46

 29

 31

 23

C.F.S.

 .28

 .26

 .21

 .20

 .24

 .18

 .18

 .28

 .19

 .21

 .18

 .17

 .18

 .19

 .17

 .18

 .16

 .17

 .13

 .01

 .11

 .14

 .09

 .11

 .15

 .14

 .14

 .16

 .10

 .11

 .08

INCHES

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .32

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

PRECIP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

OCTOBER 2017 FOLSOM LAKE DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: November 1, 2017

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S. PLANT

COMPUTED*

1000 ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

 RIVER 

TOTALS -107.3 31,925 79,491 0 0 4,796 1,513 5.10 .32

ACRE-FEET -107,300 63,323 157,670 0 0 9,513 3,001

COMMENTS:

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES, PUMPING AND EVAPORATION.

 663.8

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 157,670

SPILL

PUMPING PLANT

 0

 9,513

TOTAL 167,183

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

JULY 1, 2017 TO DATE = .32

OUTLET 0 .32

OCT 1, 2017 TO DATE = .32
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, David J. Evans, certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewed this 10-Q Report for thequarter ended September 30, 2004, of Crown Media Holdings, Inc.;

 

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

 

3.               Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4.               The registrant’s other certifying officerand I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and we have:

 

a)              Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

b)             Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

c)              Disclosed in this report any change inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

 

5.               The registrant’s other certifying officerand I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

a)              All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b)             Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.

 

Dated: November 15, 2004

 

 
|   | /s/ DAVID J. EVANS                     |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|   | David J. Evans                         |
|   | President  and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
### §§5, 5a. Repealed. Pub. L. 91–271, title III, §321(a), (b), June 2, 1970, 84 Stat. 293

Section 5, R.S. §2613, act Sept. 21, 1922, ch. 356, title IV, §523, 42 Stat. 974, provided that collectors, comptrollers, and surveyors be appointed for four year terms.

Section 5a, act July 5, 1932, ch. 430, title I, 47 Stat. 584, abolished, except at the Port of New York, the offices of surveyor and appraiser, and those of their assistants and deputies, and transferred the duties of such officers to such persons as designated by the Secretary of the Treasury.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective with respect to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after Oct. 1, 1970, and such other articles entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption prior to such date, or with respect to which a protest has not been disallowed in whole or in part before Oct. 1, 1970, see section 203 of Pub. L. 91–271, set out as an Effective Date of 1970 Amendment note under section 1500 of this title.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**FREDERICK ANDREW POSTIE,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 50 MM 2015** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 24th day of April, 2015, the Petition for Lea ve to File Petition for** 

**Allowance of Appeal** Nunc Pro Tunc **is** DENIED

**.**
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY ELEV

 584.63

 584.92

 584.78

 585.05

 585.19

 584.77

 584.83

 584.35

 585.35

 585.83

 585.66

 584.89

 585.12

 585.86

 583.93

 583.32

 582.60

 582.85

 583.63

 584.03

 584.42

 585.15

 584.85

 584.02

 582.96

 583.18

 582.96

 582.99

 584.00

 584.47

 22,279

 22,458

 22,371

 22,538

 22,626

 22,365

 22,402

 22,106

 22,727

 23,028

 22,921

 22,439

 22,582

 23,047

 21,848

 21,477

 21,044

 21,193

 21,665

 21,909

 22,149

 22,601

 22,414

 21,902

 21,259

 21,392

 21,259

 21,277

 21,890

 22,180

STORAGE

+723

+179

-87

+167

+88

-261

+37

-296

+621

+301

-107

-482

+143

+465

-1,199

-371

-433

+149

+472

+244

+240

+452

-187

-512

-643

+133

-133

+18

+613

+290

CHANGE

7,512

7,218

7,090

7,203

7,198

7,010

7,099

6,934

7,413

7,343

7,207

7,150

7,329

7,496

6,485

6,816

6,789

7,075

7,413

7,143

7,124

6,814

6,468

6,435

6,446

6,838

6,246

6,179

6,479

6,450

INFLOW

 7,142

 7,123

 7,129

 7,116

 7,147

 7,137

 7,076

 7,078

 7,094

 7,185

 7,258

 7,385

 7,253

 7,258

 7,086

 6,999

 7,002

 6,998

 7,167

 7,015

 6,998

 6,584

 6,559

 6,690

 6,768

 6,766

 6,310

 6,167

 6,167

 6,301

POWER

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

SPILL

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

FISHTRAP

 5

 5

 5

 3

 7

 5

 4

 5

 6

 6

 3

 8

 4

 4

 3

 4

 5

 2

 8

 5

 5

 2

 3

 3

 2

 5

 3

 3

 3

 3

C.F.S.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

SEPTEMBER 2013 KESWICK RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: October 1, 2013

RES.

EVAP

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS +624 208,402 207,958 0 0 129

ACRE-FEET +624 413,365 412,485 0 0 256

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 412,485

SPILL 0

 21,556

FISH TRAP 0

SPRING

CR. P. P.

RELEASE (1)

 1,639

 1,795

 1,528

 1,018

 1,139

 1,132

 1,057

 842

 973

 1,141

 1,064

 1,092

 414

 1,086

 576

 425

 970

 83

 509

 881

 879

 879

 852

 806

 781

 786

 699

 550

 615

 794

 27,005

 53,564

*COMPUTED INFLOW IS SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES, AND EVAPORATION.

(1) EVAPORATION RECORDS TAKEN FROM SHASTA PAN.

SHASTA

RELEASE

C.F.S

 5,883

 5,568

 5,599

 6,269

 6,152

 5,986

 6,200

 6,243

 6,453

 6,227

 6,021

 5,907

 6,779

 6,376

 5,822

 6,294

 5,760

 7,013

 6,872

 6,248

 6,226

 5,956

 5,603

 5,676

 5,708

 6,017

 5,444

 5,647

 5,697

 5,337

 180,983

 358,980
Electrical Conductivity, UMHOS

Day High Low Mean 14 DAY ACCUM MEAN 14 DAY AVG MEAN

1 0 0 0 0 0

2 0 0 0 0 0

3 0 0 0 0 0

4 0 0 0 0 0

5 0 0 0 0 0

6 0 0 0 0 0

7 0 0 0 0 0

8 0 0 0 0 0

9 0 0 0 0 0

10 0 0 0 0 0

11 0 0 0 0 0

12 0 0 0 0 0

13 0 0 0 0 0

14 0 0 0 0 0

15 0 0 0 0 0

16 0 0 0 0 0

17 113 102 109 109 8

18 108 98 103 212 15

19 107 96 100 312 22

20 103 93 97 409 29

21 102 93 94 503 36

22 101 92 94 597 43

23 98 90 93 690 49

24 97 87 91 781 56

25 92 87 89 870 62

26 92 87 88 958 68

27 91 87 89 1,047 75

28 99 88 90 1,137 81

29 98 91 92 1,229 88

30 94 90 92 1,321 94

31 93 91 92 1,304 93

COMMENT(S):

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

Historical Archive and Report Database

Emmaton Bottom On The Sacramento River

Period: May 2023 Run Date: 6/12/2023
### **CHAPTER 64—EXCELLENCE IN MATHEMATICS, SCIENCE, AND ENGINEERING EDUCATION**
1

Appellant's deportation resulted from his conviction in a New Jersey state court, on April 25,

1988, for possession with intent to distribute cocaine. For that offense, appellant received a 20-

year prison sentence. He served that sentence until September 25, 1995, when he became

eligible for parole. On that date, the state turned him over to the federal authorities, who

immediately deported him. 

United States Court of Appeals,

Eleventh Circuit.

No. 96-5159

Non-Argument Calendar.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

Adriano A. PERALT-REYES a.k.a. Adriano Antonio Peraltra-Reyes, Defendant-Appellant.

Dec. 18, 1997.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. (No. 95-1005-CrLenard), Joan A. Lenard, Judge.

Before TJOFLAT, ANDERSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

On September 25, 1995, appellant was deported from the United States under the

condition—issued as a warning—that he not reenter this country for five years without the Attorney

General's permission.1 Appellant disregarded this warning and on October 30, 1995, arrived at

Miami International Airport aboard a flight from the Dominican Republic. After he presented his

alien registration card and a Dominican passport, an INS inspector determined, following a computer

inquiry, that appellant had been deported five weeks earlier. Appellant was read his Miranda rights,

and waived his right to remain silent and to have the presence of counsel. He then stated:

Look, this is what's going on. I was deported a month ago from the United States from New

Jersey and I was told not to come back after five years, and I did, I'm here, just do whatever
you have to do.

A grand jury of the Southern District of Florida promptly indicted appellant for attempting

to reenter the United States after having been deported. See 8 U.S.C.A. §§ 1326(b), (b)(2) (West

Supp.1997). A jury convicted him as charged, and, after sentencing, he took this appeal.

Appellant presents four claims of error. None has merit, and only one is worthy of comment:

appellant's claim that the district court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that the charged offense

is a specific intent crime, not a general intent crime as the court instructed the jury. In United States

v. Henry, 111 F.3d 111, 114 (11th Cir.1997), we held that "specific intent is not an element of the

offense of illegal reentry into the United States after deportation in violation of Title 8 U.S.C. §

1326." Appellant acknowledges that we are bound by Henry's holding and seeks to distinguish it

on the ground that appellant was charged with attempting to reenter the United States, not

reentering. The First Circuit, in United States v. Reyes-Medina, 53 F.3d 327 (1st Cir.1995)

(unpublished), found no merit in this distinction. We find Reyes-Medina persuasive and adopt its

holding.

AFFIRMED.
### §1460. Repealed. Pub. L. 99–570, title III, §3115(b), Oct. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 3207–83

Section, acts June 17, 1930, ch. 497, title IV, §460, 46 Stat. 717; June 25, 1938, ch. 679, §10(b), 52 Stat. 1082, related to penalties for failure to report or file manifest.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1955

DORICOD UFANI EPIE, Petitioner,
versus JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A79-479-493) Submitted: April 23, 2004 Decided: May 6, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bokwe G. Mofor, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Lindemann, Assistant Director, Lisa M. Arnold, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Doricod Ufani Epie, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review from an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) affirming, without opinion, the Immigration Judge’s denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. On appeal, Epie raises challenges to the immigration judge’s determination that he failed to establish his eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder couldfail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” INS v. EliasZacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). Administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Epie fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief Epie seeks. Additionally, we uphold the immigration judge’s denial of Epie’s applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. To qualify for withholding of removal, an applicant must demonstrate “a clear probability of persecution.” INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca , 480 U.S. 421, 430-31 (1987). To obtain relief under the Convention Against Torture, an applicant- 3 - must establish that “it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2003). Based on our review of the record, we find that Epie has failed to meet either one of these standards. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.

PETITION DENIED