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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-2119

HENOK HABTEMICHAEL-SHIFERAW, Petitioner,

v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.

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

Submitted: April 28, 2009 Decided: May 26, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Aragaw Mehari, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Michael F. Hertz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Daniel E. Goldman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Paul T. Cygnarowicz, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM: Henok Habtemichael-Shiferaw, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of his applications for relief from removal. Habtemichael-Shiferaw challenges the determination that he failed to establish 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 could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and

conclude that Habtemichael-Shiferaw fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, he cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. Chen v. INS , 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999); INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca , 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). Finally, we uphold the finding below that Habtemichael-Shiferaw failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to Ethiopia. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2008). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

23 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
SO4 Contributions to MT Class I AreasMontana(ug/m3)Montana(%)Canada(ug/m3)Canada(%)Idaho(ug/m3)Idaho(%)Washington(ug/m3)Washington(%)Oregon(ug/m3)Oregon (%) OutsideDomain(ug/m3)OutsideDomain(%)Total(ug/m3)Anaconda-Pintler WA0.02 4 0.08 14 0.08 13 0.06 10 0.04 7 0.27 45 0.60Bob Marshall WA0.05 6 0.10 14 0.03 5 0.04 6 0.03 4 0.33 47 0.70Cabinet Mountains WA0.02 3 0.14 17 0.06 7 0.11 14 0.04 5 0.38 48 0.80Gates of the MountainsWA 0.05 8 0.01 1 0.03 4 0.04 6 0.02 3 0.33 48 0.70Glacier NP0.08 10 0.19 24 0.02 2 0.05 6 0.04 5 0.41 51 0.80Medicine Lake WA0.06 3 1.06 50 0.01 0 0.04 2 0.02 1 0.49 23 2.10Mission Mountain WA0.05 6 0.10 14 0.03 5 0.04 6 0.03 4 0.33 47 0.70Red Rock Lakes WA0.01 1 0.03 5 0.04 8 0.02 4 0.02 4 0.23 46 0.50Scapegoat WA0.05 6 0.10 14 0.03 5 0.04 6 0.03 4 0.33 47 0.70Selway-Bitterroot WA0.02 4 0.08 14 0.08 13 0.06 10 0.04 7 0.27 45 0.60U.L. Bend WA0.06 5 0.41 34 0.01 1 0.03 2 0.02 1 0.45 37 1.20Yellowstone NP0.01 1 0.03 5 0.04 8 0.02 4 0.02 4 0.23 46 0.50
Exhibit ‘L’

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 118-12 Filed 11/04/22 Page 1 of 3
Dr.CantuProd#000029

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 118-12 Filed 11/04/22 Page 2 of 3
Dr.CantuProd#000030

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 118-12 Filed 11/04/22 Page 3 of 3
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5310 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on sorbic acid. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 27, 2012 

Mr. SESSIONS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on sorbic acid. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SORBIC ACID. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.10.25 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 sorbic acid) is amended by striking the date in the effec7 tive period column and inserting ‘‘12/31/2015’’. 

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

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

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

11 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 200 (Monday, October 16, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61133-61134]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-26506]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 030-EOC; FRL-6885-8]


Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Bay Area 
Air Quality Management District; Extension of Comment Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is extending the comment period for action proposed on 
September 18, 2000 (65 FR 56284).

DATE: Any comments on this proposal must arrive by November 17, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Mail comments to David Wampler, Permits Office (Air-3), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 
Francisco, CA 94105-3901.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Wampler, Permits Office (Air-3), 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 744-1256.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 18, 2000, EPA proposed the 
following revisions to the California State Implementation Plan (SIP).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Local agency                Rule No.           Proposed action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bay Area AQMD...............  Regulation 1........  Approval.
Bay Area AQMD...............  Regulation 2, Rules   Limited Approval/
                               1, 2, and 4.          Disapproval.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 61134]]

    The proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. In 
response to a request from California Council for Environmental and 
Economic Balance submitted by telephone and in writing on September 28, 
2000, EPA is extending the comment period for an additional 30 days.

    Dated: October 3, 2000.
Felicia Marcus,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 00-26506 Filed 10-13-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
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 on Form 10-QSB of
StockerYale, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Richard P. Lindsay, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



(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.

|                       
|-----------------------
|                       
|/s/ Richard P. Lindsay 
|Richard P. Lindsay     
|Chief Financial Officer
|August 15, 2005
Exhibit 32.1




Certification of COO and CFO


Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002




In connection with the Annual Report of Canadian Superior Energy Inc. (the "Registrant") on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Leif Snethun, as Chief Operating Officer of the Registrant and Robb D. Thompson, as Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, 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 Registrant.






/s/ LEIF SNETHUN


Name:   Leif Snethun


Title:     Chief Operating Officer


Date:     March 30, 2010








/s/ ROBB D. THOMPSON


Name:     Robb D. Thompson


Title:       Chief Financial Officer


Date:       March 30, 2010




This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Registrant for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
**Exhibit 31.2**

** **

**ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORT**

 

I,David J. Kolibachuk, being an officer of U.S. Bank Trust National Association,the Trustee in respect of the Corporate Backed Trust Certificates, MotorolaDebenture-Backed Series 2002-14 Trust****(the “Trust”),certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-Kin respect of the Trust and all reports on Form 8-K containingdistribution or servicing reports of the Trust filed by Lehman ABS Corporationin respect of periods included in the year covered by this annual report of theTrust;

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, the information in thosereports, taken as a whole, does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading as of the last day of the period covered by this annual report;

 

3.               Based on my knowledge, the distribution informationrequired to be provided to the Depositor or the certificateholders by theTrustee under the pooling and servicing or similar agreement for inclusion insuch distribution reports is included in such reports; and

 

4.               I am responsible for reviewing the activitiesperformed by the Trustee under the pooling and servicing or similar agreementand based on my knowledge, except as disclosed in such reports, the Trustee hasfulfilled its obligations under that agreement.

 

 
| Date: March 31,  2010          |   |
|-------------------------------------|--------|
|                                |   |
|                                |   |
| /s/ David J. Kolibachuk             |   |
| David J. Kolibachuk, Vice President |   |

 

1

----
`EXHIBIT 23.1

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FRIM

     We hereby consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-126211) of Win Gaming Media Inc.(formerly known
as: Zone 4 Play, Inc.) of our report dated April 7, 2009, relating to our audit
of the consolidated financial statements of the Company as of December 31, 2008,
which report appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Win Gaming Media Inc.
Our report contains an explanatory paragraph regarding the company's ability to
continue as a going concern.


                                             /s/ Ziv Haft
                                             ----------------------------------
                                             Certified Public Accountants (Isr.)
                                             BDO Member Firms

Tel-Aviv, Israel
April 7, 2009`



---

---
**Exhibit 99.7**

 

**CERTIFICATIONSPURSUANT TO**

**RULE 13a-14(a)**

 

I,Ross A. Jones, certify that:

 

1.             Ihave reviewed this report on Form 40-F/A of Canadian Superior Energy Inc.;

 

2.             Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.             Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for,the periods presented in this report;

 

4.             Thecompany’s other certifying officer and I am responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company and have:

 

a)             designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;

 

b)            evaluatedthe effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

c)             disclosedin this report any change in the company’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.             Thecompany’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company’sauditors and the audit committee of the company’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a)             allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the company’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

b)            anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the company’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

Dated:  June 16, 2006

 
| By:    | /s/ ROSS A. JONES |                    |
|--------|-------------------|-------------------------|
|   | Name:             | Ross A. Jones           |
|   | Title:            | Chief Financial Officer |
|        |                   |                         |  |

 

 

----
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Colonial BancGroup, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended on September 30,
2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report) and to which this certification is furnished as an exhibit, I, Sarah H. Moore, the principal financial officer of the Company, certify pursuant to
18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: November 4, 2004



/S/ SARAH H. MOORESarah H. MooreChief Financial Officer




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to The Colonial BancGroup, Inc. and will be retained by The Colonial BancGroup, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Jack B. WARREN, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 25922.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 4, 1952.

Appellant, pro se.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted for the offense of arson and his punishment assessed at two years in the penitentiary.

Appellant has now filed his motion to dismiss the appeal as he no longer desires to prosecute same. This motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed.
http://www.dec.ny.gov/enb/20111228_reg2.html#264030001400031

Applicant: Arthur Kill Power LLC 4401 Victory Blvd Staten Island, NY 10314 Facility: Arthur Kill Ge nerating Station 4401 Victory Blvd Staten Island, NY 10314 Application ID: 2-6403-00014/00031 Permit(s) Applied for: Article 19 Air Title V Facility Project is Located: Staten Island, Richmond County Project Description: The Department has prepared a draft permit and has made a tentative determination to issue a Title V Permit modification for an electric genera ting facility. The purpose of the modification is to include as required under Part 249 the New Best Available Re trofit Technology (BART 6NYCRR Part 249) which will be submitted to the USEPA for approval as a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP). In accordance with 6NYCRR Part s 621.7(b)(9) and 201-6.4(c), the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has the authority to bar issuance of any Title V Facility Permit if it is determined not to be in compliance with applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act or 6NYCRR Part 201. Persons wishing to inspect the subject Title V files, including th e application with all relevant supporting materials, the draft permit, and all other materials available to the DEC (the "permitting authority") that are relevant to this permitting decision should contact the DEC representative listed below. The Draft Permit and Permit Review Report may be viewed and printed from the Department web site at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/32249.html

. DEC will evaluate the application and the comments received on it to determine whether to holda public hearing. Comments and requests for a pub lic hearing should be in writing and addressed to the Department representative list ed below. A copy of the Department's permit hearing procedures is available upon request or on the Department web site at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/6234.html. Availability of Application Documents: Filed application documents, and Department draf t permits where applicable, are available for inspection during normal business hours at the a ddress of the contact person. To ensure timely service at the time of inspecti on, it is recommended that an ap pointment be made with the contact person. State Environmental Quality Re view (SEQR) Determination: Project is not subject to SEQR because it is a Type II action. SEQR Lead Agency: None Designated State Historic Preservation Act (SHPA) Determination: The proposed activity is not subject to review in accordance with SHPA . The permit type is exempt or the activity is being reviewed in accordance with federal historic preservation regulations. Coastal Management: This project is not located in a Coastal Manage ment area and is not subj ect to the Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act. Opportunity for Public Comment: Comments on this project must be submitted in writing to the Contact Person no later than Jan 27, 2012

. Contact: Elizabeth A Clarke NYSDEC Region 2 Headquarters 47-40 21st St Long Island City, NY 11101 (718)482-4997 r2dep@gw.dec.state.ny.us
#### Samuel Bierman, Respondent, *v.*Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

March 28, 1957.

*335
      *Ilaughton Bell*and *Edward A. Voegeli*for appellant.

*Samuel Bierman,*in person, and *Milton Brachfeld*for Samuel Bierman, respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The words “ upon request ” read in context with the other language contained in the Automatic Premium Loans provision of the policy create an ambiguity, which construed strictly against the insurance company as we are bound to, did not confer upon the company the right to make the premium loan without a request therefor from the insured or someone on his behalf.

However, under the “ Options on Lapse ” provision of the policy the company would have been required to continue the policy in force as extended term insurance until December 9, 1953, which would have provided the longest possible coverage for the insured and his assignee had the loan not been made. In view of the fact that the insured died on December 6, 1954, almost one year after the longest possible term, and since after December 9, 1953 the policy had no cash surrender value, plaintiff, in face of his failure to elect an option on lapse and his failure to demand the net cash value of the policy prior to the commencement of this suit, failed to prove that he sustained any damages.

Consequently he was not entitled to the cash surrender value as of the date when the automatic loan provision was invoked by the company to pay the premium even though the cash surrender value was thereby diminished by the amount of the loan. Under the circumstances, no damages having been sustained by plaintiff, it was error to award him judgment.

The judgment should be reversed, without costs, and complaint dismissed.

Hofstadteb, Steueb and Hecht, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, etc.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1410

In Re: WILLIAM L. HANDY, JR., a/k/a B.,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(8:04-cr-00559-AW-7; 8:09-cv-02011-AW;

8:13-cv-00477-AW)

Submitted: June 26, 2014 Decided: July 1, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William L. Handy, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

William L. Handy, Jr., petitions for a writ of 

mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed 

acting on his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion. He 

seeks an order from this court directing the district court to 

act. Our review of the district court’s docket reveals that the 

district court denied Handy’s motion in December 2013.

Accordingly, because the district court has decided Handy’s 

case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We grant leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process. 

PETITION DENIED