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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

MOHAMED MOHASIN ALHAG, 

Petitioner,

v.  No. 02-1569 U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION

SERVICE; JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney

General,

Respondents. 

On Petition for Review of an Order

of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

(A74-665-596)

Submitted: February 26, 2003

Decided: March 11, 2003

Before MOTZ, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Kenneth F. Liberstein, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Robert D.

McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Senior Litigation Counsel,

Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Mohamed Mohasin Alhag, a native and citizen of Yemen, seeks

review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board)

dismissing the immigration judge’s (IJ’s) denial of his applications

for asylum and for withholding of deportation. We have reviewed the

administrative record and find that substantial evidence supports the

conclusion of the IJ and the Board that Alhag failed to establish a

well-founded fear of persecution necessary to qualify for relief from

deportation.1See 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(4) (1994);2 8 C.F.R.

§ 208.13(b) (2002). We conclude that the record supports the IJ’s

conclusion that Alhag failed to establish his eligibility for asylum. 

The standard for withholding of deportation is "more stringent than

that for asylum eligibility." Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir.

1999). An applicant for withholding must demonstrate a clear probability of persecution. INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430

(1987). As Alhag has failed to establish refugee status, he cannot satisfy the higher standard for withholding of deportation. 

We accordingly deny the petition for review. We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal arguments are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process. 

PETITION DENIED

1Alhag does not argue past persecution to this court. 

2We note that 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(4) was repealed by the Illegal

Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996

(IIRIRA), Pub. L. No. 104-128, 110 Stat. 3009 (IIRIRA), effective April

1, 1997. Because this case was in transition at the time the IIRIRA was

passed, § 1105a(a)(4) is still applicable here under the terms of the transitional rules contained in § 309(c) of the IIRIRA. 

2 ALHAG v. INS
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2386 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 1-Flouro-2-nitrobenzene. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 8, 2006 

Mrs. LINCOLN (for herself and Mr. PRYOR) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 1-Flouro-2-nitrobenzene. 

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

3 SECTION 1. 1-FLOURO-2-NITROBENZENE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by striking heading 9902.29.04 and inserting the 

7 following new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.29.04 1-Flouro-2-nitrobenzene 

(CAS No. 1493-27-2) (provided for in subheading 

2904.90.30) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•S 2386 IS

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

AARON LEE DURNING.

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 3:20-cv-5529-LC-MJF

MARK INCH,

Respondent.

/

ORDER

This cause comes on for consideration upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report

and Recommendation dated February 4, 2021. (Doc. 16). The parties were

furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and were afforded an

opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section

636(b)(1). I have made a de novo determination of the filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation and the objections

thereto, I conclude that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 16), is

adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order.

Page 1 of 2

Case 3:20-cv-05529-LC-MJF Document 18 Filed 03/02/21 Page 1 of 2
2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 11) is GRANTED.

3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1), challenging the

judgment of conviction and sentence in State of Florida v. Aaron Lee Durning,

Escambia County Circuit Court Case No. 2015-CF-5376, is DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to exhaust state court remedies. 

4. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

5. The clerk of court shall close this case file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 2ndday of March, 2021.

 s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2

Case 3:20-cv-05529-LC-MJF Document 18 Filed 03/02/21 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                              SELECTED QUARTERLY FINANCIAL DATA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              1995                                            1996
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unaudited (In Thousands,    FIRST         SECOND        THIRD        FOURTH         FIRST         SECOND       THIRD      FOURTH
except per-share data)    QUARTER(1)    QUARTER(1)    QUARTER(1)    QUARTER(1)    QUARTER(1)    QUARTER(1)    QUARTER    QUARTER(2)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                       <C>           <C>           <C>           <C>           <C>         <C>            <C>        <C>
Revenues                   $159,422     $180,323      $185,367      $209,241      $208,522    $206,665       $219,618   $248,462
Operating income           $ 34,741     $ 41,654      $ 42,132      $ 44,664      $ 45,311    $ 46,653       $ 49,803   $ 69,238
Income before income
  expense tax              $ 25,984     $ 30,213      $ 29,840      $ 32,973      $ 34,256    $ 36,542       $ 40,215   $ 60,235
Net income                 $ 14,008     $ 17,303      $ 17,059      $ 18,886      $ 19,487    $ 20,877       $ 23,005   $ 34,453
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary earnings per
  share (3),(4)               $.21        $.24          $.25          $.27          $.28        $.29           $.32       $.47
Fully diluted earnings
  per share(3),(4)            $.20        $.24          $.24          $.27          $.27        $.29           $.32       $.47
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating Cash
  Flow(5)                  $ 35,810     $ 43,193      $ 43,949      $ 46,056      $ 50,732    $ 48,035       $ 50,475   $ 62,129
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
</TABLE>
 
(1) Restated due to pooling of interests transactions completed in the third
    quarter of 1996.
 
(2) Non-recurring events contributed approximately $12,000,000 to revenues and
    $.10 to earnings per share.
 
(3) Historical per-share figures restated for the two-for-one common stock split
    effective June 7, 1996.
 
(4) Under generally accepted accounting principles, when earnings per share are
    computed under the modified treasury stock method and when the market price
    of a company's common stock changes, the total of four quarters' earnings
    per share may not equal the earnings per share for the year.
 
(5) Net income plus amortization and depreciation.

                                  72
Exhibit 31.2



I, Fernando Fussa, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Southern Trust Securities Holding Corp. (the small business issuer);

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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.   The small business issuer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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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)   [Paragraph omitted pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934]

c)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer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

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



5.   The small business issuers other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer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 small business issuer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 small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.



Date: July 31, 2007

By: /s/ Fernando Fussa



Name: Fernando Fussa

Title: Chief Financial Officer
AMENDED AND RESTATED
 KB HOME
 NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS COMPENSATION PLAN
 (Effective as of July 9, 2009)
          -1-




---



##### 



-2-




---



##### 



The Wall Street Journal
   -3-




---



##### 



-4-




---



##### 



-5-




---



##### 



-6-




---



##### 



-7-




---



##### 



-8-




---



##### 



-9-




---



##### 



-10-




---



##### 



Director Year 2010
  Annual Board Retainer
    
    $80,000Committee Chair Retainers
    
    $25,000 (Audit and Compliance)
$18,000 (MDCC)
$10,000 (NCG)Committee Member Retainers
    
    $10,000 (Audit and Compliance)
$7,000 (MDCC)
$5,000 (NCG)Annual Stock Unit Award
    
    An Award with a value of $67,500Annual Option Award
    
    An Award with a value of $67,500Additional Meeting Fees
    
    $1,500 per Board or committee meetingPer Diem Fees
    
    TBD on a case-by-case basis in accordance
with the Plan
 -11-
**Exhibit 32.2**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuantto section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) ofsection 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersignedofficer of O2 Secure Wireless, Inc., a Georgia corporation (the “Company”),does hereby certify, to the best of her knowledge, that:

1.     The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB forthe quarter ended December 31, 2006 (the “Report”) of the Company complies inall material respects with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2.     The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

*/s/ India Creery*

India Creery, InterimChief Financial Officer

Date: February 14, 2007

 

----
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

MICHAEL DUBOIS, et al, 

Plaintiffs,

v. CASE NO. 4:03-cv-00107-SPM-AK

RHONDA MEDOWS, et al, 

Defendants.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Expedite Time for

Defendants to File an Opposition and for an Expedited Ruling on Plaintiffs’ Motion to

Compel Production of Documents and for Entry of an Order of Protection. (Doc. 113). 

Having considered said motion and Defendants’ response thereto, the Court is of the 

opinion that it should be GRANTED, but that Defendants should have through June 30, 

2004, to file their response to the pending motion to compel. 

DONE AND ORDERED at Gainesville, Florida, this 22nd day of June, 2004.

s/ A. KORNBLUM 

ALLAN KORNBLUM

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 4:03-cv-00107-SPM -AK Document 118 Filed 06/22/04 Page 1 of 1
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  Cascade  Technologies   Corp.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending  May 31, 2008 as filed  with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof  (the  "Report"),   I
Christine  Thomas, Chief  Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant
to  18  U.S.C.  Section  1350, as  adopted  pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

      (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  result  of  operations of the
Company.

/s/ Christine Thomas
--------------------
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
98-1946.

#### State ex rel. Burnett v. Barber.

In Mandamus. On motion to dismiss. Motion to dismiss sustained. Cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

KENT HOVIND and

PAUL HANSEN, as trustee

for Creation Science Evangelism,

Plaintiffs,

vs. Case No.: 3:20cv5484/TKW/EMT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

Defendants.

/

ORDER

I hereby disqualify myself from handling any proceedings in the above-styled 

case. The clerk is directed to randomly reassign this case to one of the active United 

States Magistrate Judges in this district and to change the docket to reflect the 

reassignment.

DONE AND ORDERED this 19th day of August 2020.

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy 

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-05484-TKW-MJF Document 10 Filed 08/19/20 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO.: 4:03cr28-SPM

CLARENCE F. HOOKS,

Defendant.

____________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REDUCE UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 3582

This cause comes before the Court on Defendant Clarence F. Hooks’

motion to reduce sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) and the retroactive crack

cocaine amendment (Amendments 706 and 711).

Upon review, the Court finds that Defendant is not entitled to a sentence

reduction. An application of the amendment results in no change to Defendant’s

guideline range because of the career offender enhancement, which sets

Defendant’s offense level at 37. With a 3 point reduction for acceptance of

responsibility, Defendant’s total offense level remains at level 34, and his

guideline range remains 262-327 months as originally calculated. Accordingly, it

is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the motion for reduction of sentence

Case 4:03-cr-00028-MW-CAS Document 38 Filed 04/15/08 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

CASE NO.: 4:03cr28-SPM

(doc. 35) is denied.

DONE AND ORDERED this 15th day of April, 2008.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 4:03-cr-00028-MW-CAS Document 38 Filed 04/15/08 Page 2 of 2
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 19

- 1678

_____________________________
B RADFORD S. M ATHENY ,
Petitioner
,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Respondent

.

_____________________________

Petition for Belated Appeal

— Original Jurisdiction

.

August 8, 2019

P ER C URIAM

. The petition for belated appeal is denied on the merits.

L EWIS , R OWE , and K ELSEY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Bradford S. Matheny, pro se
, Petitioner

.2 Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Respondent

.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JOHN J. DANIELS,

Plaintiff,

v. 4:20cv246–WS/MAF

STEVEN S. CLOUD, et al.,

Defendants.

 

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (ECF

No. 34 docketed December 1, 2020. The magistrate judge recommends that this

case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply

with court orders. In the alternative, the magistrate judge recommends that

Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed as an impermissible shotgun pleading, for

misjoinder, and because claims under the Americans for Disabilities Act are not

cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The magistrate judge has since denied

Plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint, explaining that Plaintiff failed to

comply with court orders to amend his 115-page complaint until months after the

Case 4:20-cv-00246-WS-MAF Document 40 Filed 01/22/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

extended deadline lapsed on November 10, 2020.1 Plaintiff has filed objections

(ECF No. 37) to the report and recommendation.

Upon review of the record, this court has determined that the report and

recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation (ECF No. 39) is

adopted and incorporated by reference in this order of the court.

2. Plaintiff’s complaint and this action are hereby DISMISSED without

prejudice for failure to comply with court orders to appropriately amend his

complaint in a timely manner. 

3. The clerk is directed to enter judgment, stating: "All claims are dismissed

without prejudice."

DONE AND ORDERED this 21st day of January , 2021.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1 The magistrate judge also noted that Plaintiff’s proposed amended

complaint fails to comport with the Rules governing this proceeding.

Case 4:20-cv-00246-WS-MAF Document 40 Filed 01/22/21 Page 2 of 2
§ 3555.251 Servicing responsibility. ( a ) *Servicing action.* Lenders must perform those servicing actions that a reasonable and prudent lender would perform in servicing its own portfolio of non-guaranteed loans.
( b ) *Third party servicer.* A lender may contract with a third party to service its loans, but the servicing lender of record remains responsible for the quality and completeness of the servicing.
( c ) *Transfer of servicing.* Rural Development may require a lender to transfer its loan servicing activities to an approved lender if Rural Development determines that the lender has failed to provide acceptable servicing.
( d ) *Non-compliance.* Lenders who fail to comply with Agency requirements or program guidelines may be subject to withdrawal of lender approval, denial and/or reduction in loss claims, withdrawal of the loan guarantee and/or indemnification in accordance with § 3555.108(d).
#### § 4279.104 Appeals.

Section 4279.16 applies to this subpart.
#### §§ 3570.54-3570.60 [Reserved]
2006-0717.

#### Curtis v. Jeffreys.

In Habeas Corpus. On petition for wilt of habeas corpus of Kevin Lee Curtis. Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
#### § 400.162 Qualification ratios.

(a) The eighteen qualification ratios include:

(1) Thirteen National Association of Insurance Commissioner's (NAIC) Insurance Regulatory Information System (IRIS) ratios found in [paragraphs (b)(1)](/on/2024-09-16/title-7/section-400.162#p-400.162(b)(1)) through [(12)](/on/2024-09-16/title-7/section-400.162#p-400.162(b)(12)) and [(17)](/on/2024-09-16/title-7/section-400.162#p-400.162(b)(17)) of this section and referenced in “Using the NAIC Insurance Regulatory Information System” distributed by NAIC, 1100 Walnut St., Suite 1500, Kansas City, MO 64106-2197;

(2) Three ratios used by A.M. Best Company found in [paragraphs (b)(13)](/on/2024-09-16/title-7/section-400.162#p-400.162(b)(13)), [(15)](/on/2024-09-16/title-7/section-400.162#p-400.162(b)(15)), and [(16)](/on/2024-09-16/title-7/section-400.162#p-400.162(b)(16)) of this section and referenced in Best's Key Rating Guide, A.M. Best, Ambest Road, Oldwick, N.J. 08858-0700;

(3) One ratio found in [paragraph (b)(14)](/on/2024-09-16/title-7/section-400.162#p-400.162(b)(14)) of this section which is formulated by FCIC and is calculated the same as the One-Year Change to Surplus IRIS ratio but for a two-year period; and

(4) One ratio found in [paragraph (b)(18)](/on/2024-09-16/title-7/section-400.162#p-400.162(b)(18)) of this section, which is reported on the annual statutory financial statement.

(b) The Company shall provide an explanation for any ratio falling outside of the following requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (18):

| Ratio | Ratio requirement |
| --- | --- |
| (1) Gross Premium Written to Policyholders Surplus | <900% |
| (2) Net Premium Written to Policyholders Surplus | <300% |
| (3) Change in Net Premiums Writings | −33% to 33% |
| (4) Surplus Aid to Policyholders Surplus | <15% |
| (5) Two-Year Overall Operating Ratio | <100% |
| (6) Change in Policyholders Surplus | −10% to 50% |
| (7) Investment Yield | 3.0% to 6.5% |
| (8) Liabilities to Liquid Assets | <100% |
| (9) Gross Agents Balances to Policyholders Surplus | <40% |
| (10) One Year Reserve Development to Policyholders Surplus | <20% |
| (11) Two Year Reserve Development to Policyholders Surplus | <20% |
| (12) Estimated Current Reserve Deficiency to Policyholders Surplus | <25% |
| (13) Combined Ratio after Policyholder Dividend | <115% |
| (14) Two Year Change in Surplus | >−10% |
| (15) Quick Liquidity | >20% |
| (16) Return on Surplus | >−5% |
| (17) Net Change in Adjusted Policyholder Surplus | −10% to 25% |
| (18) Risk Based Capital Ratio | > 200% |