alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FERNANDO JAVIER COREAS

SEGOVIA,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 20

- 70554

Agency No. A208

- 446

- 069

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 2 2 , 2022 * *
Pasadena, California

Before: WALLACE and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and LASNIK, ** * District Judge.

P etitioner Fernando Javier Coreas

- Segovi a, a native and citizen of El

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

*** The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik, United States District Judge for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

DEC 22 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

Salvador

, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order

denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8

U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Najmabadi v. Holder , 597 F.3d

983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Coreas

- Segovia’s motion to

reopen as untimely because it was filed more than a year after the agency’s final

order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) , and Coreas

- Segovia failed to demonstrate

changed circumstances in El Salvador to qualify for the exception to the time

limitation for motions to reopen

, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c) ( 3)(ii). A petitioner

moving to reopen based on changed country conditions must submit evidence

showing tha t conditions are “ qualitatively different ” than they were at the time of

his original hearing. Najmabadi

, 597 F.3d at 98 7

- 90

. Coreas

- Segovia’s new

evidence did not demonstrate a statistically significant increase in the homicide

rate; much of his evidenc e reflected continuing problems rather than new or

worsening conditions that arose after his 2017 hearing ; and his concerns about the

effects of the Trump administration’s terminating aid to El Salvador had not yet

been borne out. Substantial evidence the refore suppor ts the BIA’s conclusion that

the evidence accompanying Coreas

- Segovia’s motion was not significantly

different from that available at the time of his hearing

. See i d. at 991.

Because failure to demonstrate a relevant change in country conditions was a3

sufficient ground on which the BIA could deny the motion to reopen, we need not

address Coreas

- Segovia’s prima facie eligibility for asylum, withholding of

removal, and protection under the Convent ion Against Torture

. See Rodriguez v.

Garland , 990 F.3d 1205, 1211 (9th Cir. 2021).

PETITION DENIED.
259 La. 53

#### SOUTH CENTRAL BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY v. LOUISIANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION et al.

No. 51476.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 16, 1971.

On motion of counsel for Relator and Respondent and on showing that, the Court having issued an Order on June 8, 1971, directing the Nineteenth Judicial District Court to hear the application of South Central Bell Telephone Company for an injunction and to determine whether or not it should issue the injunction and thereafter, considering the petition of Louisiana Public Service Commission, having vacated its Order of June 8, 1971, and having granted a writ of certiorari applied for by South Central Bell Telephone Company with a stay order, directing the Nineteenth Judicial District Court and Respondent to show cause on the 17th day of June, 1971, why the relief prayed for by the Relator should not be granted, and the litigants having resolved the differences between them;

It is now ordered that the said case be dismissed as moot.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2858 

To name the community-based outpatient clinic of the Department of Veterans Affairs in Guntersville, Alabama, as the ‘‘Colonel Ola Lee Mize 

Department of Veterans Affairs Clinic’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 20, 2023 

Mr. TUBERVILLE (for himself and Mrs. BRITT) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To name the community-based outpatient clinic of the Department of Veterans Affairs in Guntersville, Alabama, 

as the ‘‘Colonel Ola Lee Mize Department of Veterans 

Affairs Clinic’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF COLONEL OLA LEE MIZE DE4 PARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS CLINIC. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The community-based outpatient 

6 clinic of the Department of Veterans Affairs located at 

7 100 Judy Smith Drive, Guntersville, Alabama, shall after 

8 the date of the enactment of this Act be known and desVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:26 Sep 21, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S2858.IS S2858

kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 2858 IS

1 ignated as the ‘‘Colonel Ola Lee Mize Department of Vet2 erans Affairs Clinic’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCE.—Any reference in any law, regula4 tion, map, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the community-based outpatient clinic referred 

6 to in subsection (a) shall be considered to be a reference 

7 to the Colonel Ola Lee Mize Department of Veterans Af8 fairs Clinic. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 316 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 316

  To repeal the authorizations for use of military force against Iraq.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 9, 2023

  Mr. Kaine (for himself, Mr. Young, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Grassley, Mr. 
 Durbin, Mr. Lee, Mr. Coons, Mr. Paul, Ms. Duckworth, Mr. Daines, Ms. 
 Hirono, Mr. Marshall, Mr. King, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Moran, 
Mr. Lujan, Ms. Collins, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Braun, Mr. Booker, and Ms. 
    Lummis) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
             referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To repeal the authorizations for use of military force against Iraq.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST 
              IRAQ RESOLUTION.

    The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution 
(Public Law 102-1; 105 Stat. 3; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) is hereby 
repealed.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ 
              RESOLUTION OF 2002.

    The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution 
of 2002 (Public Law 107-243; 116 Stat. 1498; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) is 
hereby repealed.
                                 <all>
```
* 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.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________________

No. 97-50948

Summary Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JEFFREY WAYNE EMMONS,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court,

for the Western District of Texas

(A-96-CA-851-JN)

_________________________________________________________________

July 27, 1998

Before KING, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jeffrey Wayne Emmons, federal inmate # 49023-080, appeals the

district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate,

correct, or set aside his conviction for using and carrying a

firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime. Because Emmons’s

appeal is straightforward, the interests of justice do not require

the appointment of counsel. Accordingly, Emmons’s motion for

appointment of counsel is DENIED.
2

Emmons contends that his conviction in 1989 under 18 U.S.C. §

924(c)(1) must be vacated because the definition in the jury

instructions of the term “use” was erroneous in the light of Bailey

v. United States, 516 U.S. 137 (1995). The jury instructions did

not define the term “carry” and, therefore, the jury was permitted

to give the term its ordinary meaning. The only firearms relating

to Emmons, introduced into evidence at trial, were those he

transported in the trunk of his vehicle. Therefore, the jury’s

guilty verdict for “using” or “carrying” firearms, based on the

evidence at trial, necessarily encompassed the elements required to

sustain a conviction under the “carrying” prong of 18 U.S.C. §

924(c)(1). See Muscarello v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 118 S.

Ct. 1911, 1913-14 (1998) (holding that a firearm in the trunk of a

car satisfies the “carrying” prong of § 924(c)(1)); United States

v. Harlan, 130 F.3d 1152, 1153-54 (5th Cir. 1997). Accordingly,

Emmons is not entitled to § 2255 relief. See United States v.

Logan, 135 F.3d 353, 355-56 (5th Cir. 1998).

AFFIRMED
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6995
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TYRELL DANTE BROWN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CR-00-94, CA-02-436-2) Submitted: November 6, 2003 Decided: November 20, 2003 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tyrell Dante Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Fernando Groene, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Tyrell Dante Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding 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 his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, , 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1039 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Brown has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and di smiss 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 of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as

adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with this Annual Report on Form 10-K of SRA
International, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Richard J. Nadeau, Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

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

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

Dated: August 25, 2009



/S/    RICHARD J. NADEAURichard J. Nadeau Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting
Officer)
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-11-00892-CR

Amy Lee YARA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011CR2906

Honorable Maria Teresa Herr, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI, JUSTICE ALVAREZ, AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is 

AFFIRMED. Appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

SIGNED June 12, 2013.

_____________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 197 (Friday, October 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 53040]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27097]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Agency Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94-409, that the Securities and 
Exchange Commission will hold the following meeting during the week of 
October 13, 1997.
    A closed meeting will be held on Tuesday, October 14, 1997, at 
10:30 a.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the 
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. 
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be 
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has 
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth 
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) (4), (8), (9)(A) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a) 
(4), (8), (9)(i) and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled 
matters at the closed meeting.
    Commissioner Hunt, as duty officer, voted to consider the items 
listed for the closed meeting in a closed session.
    The subject matter of the closed meeting scheduled for Tuesday, 
October 14, 1997, at 10:30 a.m., will be:
    Institution of injunctive actions.
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an 
enforcement nature.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to 
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, 
please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at (202) 942-7070.

    Dated: October 7, 1997.
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-27097 Filed 10-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
83( 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTlN 

lr Stats other tha the ootmty 

oe aall in rd6ltlcll tothe 

provldoi by law for thelx 

rar hotel 

aaa pot to oxored Pour arnta 

blJ.la, 

l ml10 wilea 

trcrtsl~ br railroad or baa llaau, rod aot 

to l m00a to n o elr tl r tila when travsllng by 

private oanveyukoa ln golw to me r&urn* 

Srom the plaoo where meh dutlw~ are dloobrged, 
Roar 

ruoh 

Fma mTl8, Pa60 6 

trarollng tho nearest praotloal muto. Suoh 

l xpmws rhall be paid uPtar the ooapletldn 

of each team OS Court by the rsapestlre nountier OP the tudlolal Dlrtrlot PCW whlah they 

ora laolwrod, e&oh aaunt 

Inoldmtal to ltr own Reg ur 

91~ the rx~~~sw 

ar l r.@eol~l IL= 

0r court, arid da oapnrra eikiil k p8ia t0 

the offloIa1 or deputy off1oIal sluMha 

reporter by the ComIoslanera* Ccurt at the 

bounty out or the ~oaual fund or the oouaty, 

upon do morn rtatrnent of tbo reporter, 

approved by the fud&e, 

w07id4 a .,. *in 6Irtrlotr oontslnlnb; 

fom~ dauntire only, the lxponsar h r r eln allowtd shall never exoaad Four Ruadrsd Dollara 

prr ax~num;,~~~” 

You adrlso that the non-realdoat oountlec o? 

dlstrlot _ ue Folk, bane +lnto~ rncj V+llmr and that - _- thr 

ii 

ro~ortloa ot tUti. qoat 111 eaoh of there oountlea 

as t c oaaa bear, to the whole is thirty-one, twentythree and forty-six pu ornt, neprotlvelp. Your 1nqulx-9 

resolved It&&t into the qumtion of whether or not suoh 

maximtrn sxp8nws oi ?our Iiundred Dollare should be p$Id 

by wok ef maI6 oountlea u&oa 8. puornta&e bucla. 

me@ ,,“,“~~~b~~t,t~~~*~~~I~~d.~uty 

a6 .td aaae iiiy be 

trim his boao ooud 

1s allmmd oertala l ~wmr while ma9 

be pi16 

%I 

the I 

end provides that aueh expm80 ckll 

ooun 9 

t1Qn oi t 

in whlob ho 84n44 upon the amplepartloular tonh 8818 nquIredta~opam 

a morn etattxent of hir aaotual and n444aaory l p o ntwP 

to bo approved b9 the jud60 and theroofter, to be paI 

by the oounty out of the georral fund, 7’here appaam no 

roquImwnt or authority for either ths roportor or the 

oounty to reduoe his 0xp0n8e UOOO~U& to the 

that suoh tlm B 

roeatage 

the tot41 tore t El0 

nt In a partloular oounty r eara to 

of the three oountI,e, 

Xt 10 therorors, the .oglnIon of this department 

and you ar4 80 atl+fo4d that your ocwt roportsr mat 

8uba;Lt an oxpsnse aooount of hlr Fadtwl yd aeoossar9 
oxpamea to uwh non-reald~at‘ oount9 la uhloh ha sorvem 

and roool+r 

I? 

themotor until be bar rraelvd hlr MAmua or mm undrod Dollar@ without ward to l porooata&r baar, Aftor h@ ha8 teorlwb hl8 mxllam rho mot 

then aorvo rlthaut nimburmmrnt ior hit expo~4(1. 

UIAX
#### Fred T. HANSEN v. UNITED STATES of America.*

No. 5900.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Oct. 7, 1936.

Thomas B. Hart, of Chicago, 111., for appellee.

Before EVANS and SPARKS, Circuit Judges, and LINDLEY, District Judge.

*

 Writ of certiorari denied 57 S.Ct. 491, 81 L.Ed. —r-.

PER CURIAM.

Now this day come the parties by their counsel and this cause now comes on to be heard on the printed record and briefs of counsel and on oral arguments.

On consideration whereof it is now here ordered and adjudged by this court that the judgment of the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, in this cause be, and the same .is hereby, affirmed.
Searched for **https://www.acl.gov/**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **https://www.acl.gov/**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 197 (Friday, October 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 52982]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26956]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-162-004]


Cove Point LNG Limited Partnership; Notice of Tariff Compliance 
Filing

October 6, 1997.
    Take notice on October 1, 1997, Cove Point LNG Limited Partnership 
(Cove Point) tendered for filing to become a part of Cove Point's FERC 
Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff 
sheets to be effective November 1, 1997:

Second Revised Sheet No. 99
Second Revised Sheet No. 127
Second Revised Sheet No. 136

    Cove Point states that these tariff sheets are being filed to 
comply with the Commission's Office of Pipeline Regulation's letter 
order of June 25, 1997, requiring incorporation of GISB definitions 
approved by Order No. 587-C and requiring certain other GISB standards 
to be incorporated through tariff language or by reference, but not by 
both means.
    Cove Point states that copies of the filing were served upon Cove 
Point's customers and interested state regulatory commissions.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. All protests filed with 
the Commission will be considered by it in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make the protestants parties 
to the proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-26956 Filed 10-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

ISAIAH TERMAINE BELCHER,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 21

- 30203

D.C. No. 3:18

- cr

- 00145

- RRB

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Alaska

Ralph R. Beistline, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 12, 2022 * *

Before: SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Isaiah Termaine Belcher appeals pro se from the district court’s order s

denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i)

and motion for reconsideration . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

review the de nial of a motion for compassionate release and the denial of a motion

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUL 21 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 21

- 30203

for reconsideration for abuse of discretion

. S ee United States v. Keller , 2 F.4th

1278, 1281 (9th Cir. 2021 ) ; Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty , Or. v. ACandS,

Inc. , 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 ( 9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.

Belcher contends that the district court did not appreciate its discretion to

consider extraordinary and compelling reasons beyond the criteria provided by

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 . The record does not support Belcher’s claim. The district

court considered Belcher’s medical conditions without reference to § 1B1.13 and

,

given the medical records documenting his assessments and treatment, did not

abuse its discretion in conclud ing t hat hi s health issues were being adequately

addressed

. See United States v. Robertson , 895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2018)

(district court abuses its discretion only if its decision is illogical, implausible, or

without support in the record).

Belcher a lso contends that the district court did not properly weigh the 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. The court acted within its broad discretion, however, in

concluding that Belcher ’s rehabilitative efforts, though commendable, did not

warrant compassionate relea se in light of the nature of his offense and Belcher’s

significant criminal history. See Keller , 2 F.4th 1284.

AFFIRMED.