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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-2342

MICHAEL TEFFERA GEBREMESKEL, Petitioner,

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

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

Submitted: August 7, 2009 Decided: September 18, 2009

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James A. Roberts, LAW OFFICE OF JAMES A. ROBERTS, Fairfax, Virginia, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel E. Goldman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jem C. Sponzo, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM: Michael Teffera Gebremeskel, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Before this court, Gebremeskel challenges the 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 could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” INS v. EliasZacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed the

evidence of record and conclude that Gebremeskel fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we find that substantial evidence supports the denial of asylum

relief. Additionally, we uphold the denial of Gebremeskel’s request for withholding of removal. “Because the burden of proof for withholding of removal is higher than for asylum--even though the facts that must be proved are the same--an applicant who is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).”

Camara v. Ashcroft , 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). Because

23 Gebremeskel failed to show that he is eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of removal. 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

* Gebremeskel does not challenge the denial of his request for protection under the Convention Against Torture in his brief before the court. In any event, the court lacks jurisdiction over any such challenge in light of Gebremeskel’s failure to raise a Convention Against Torture claim before the Board. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2006) (“A court may review a final order of removal only if . . . the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies available to the alien as of right.”); Massis v. Mukasey , 549 F.3d 631, 638-40 (4th Cir. 2008) (holding that we lack jurisdiction to consider an argument not raised before the Board).
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2262 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2262

  To amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act to require certain consumer 
 reporting agencies to include a credit score when providing consumers 
                  with a free annual consumer report.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 1, 2017

    Mrs. Beatty (for herself, Ms. Norton, Ms. Kaptur, Ms. Kelly of 
 Illinois, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Mrs. Watson Coleman, Mrs. Dingell, 
  Mr. Kildee, Mr. Meeks, Mr. Butterfield, Mr. Brown of Maryland, Ms. 
Sewell of Alabama, Mr. Veasey, Ms. Lee, Mr. McEachin, Ms. Clarke of New 
   York, Mr. Lawson of Florida, Mr. Bishop of Georgia, Mr. Lewis of 
 Georgia, Ms. Jackson Lee, and Mr. Richmond) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act to require certain consumer 
 reporting agencies to include a credit score when providing consumers 
                  with a free annual consumer report.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Free Credit Score Act of 2017''.

SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF CREDIT SCORE WITH FREE ANNUAL REPORT.

    The Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.) is amended--
            (1) in section 609(a)(1)(B), by inserting before the period 
        the following: ``, except as required under section 
        612(a)(1)(D)''; and
            (2) in section 612(a)(1), by adding at the end the 
        following:
                    ``(D) Inclusion of credit score.--A consumer 
                reporting agency that provides a consumer report to a 
                consumer pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall also 
                provide such consumer with a credit score (as defined 
                under section 609(f)).''.
                                 <all>
```
' V VANCE HAS SEEIV

DEPARTMENT OF TTHEIUR FORCE

a 

OFFICE OF THEMIEN SUMMIT

MEMORANDUM

•

iesi.etcgtod 4.7e ct4

r11era1A7 riVoieut.#4;6.6 fra-

-144 ,vnere 47 /4

444.rot La.74,

74'4 ----c+< 4

AC As-141

/itc, m., .14geas•-sial-.

/v;4 •-sed .e3n.akz

&t,r4 twat Cents .64w To grit,

4,74/e/rwl, 017 May. • 7-4.;fre itusveAd re:~ fr. arni a4",

41/ 0441. 77 C/

wi,a coal /ozCaeavit

4

a-ti ..rd

to,

,/ Cou/trae , a fl,te.t,

•

,O,p.roe

n•
CONSERVATION TREATMENT EFFECTS

INFORMATION

CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT UNIT - Rangeland, Lazy DC Ranch, Management Units C-H (5,250 Ac), eastern Oregon foothill site. 

CONSERVATION TREATMENT:  RMS # 1

Prescribed grazing system and the physical practices necessary to implement the range management components will be installed on rangeland.  Riparian area and wildlife use areas are addressed within the grazing prescription.

�

RESOURCE PROBLEMS:  The riparian zone along Heater Creek is Moderately degraded.  The stream channel is down-cut.  Streambank erosion occurs along portions of the channel.  Other concerns include sedimentation, water quality, wildlife habitat and economic considerations.�

�

POSITIVE +�

NEGATIVE -�

�

+ Reduce sheet & rill erosion by 2 Tons/Ac/Yr.

+ Reduce streambank erosion by 20 Tons/Ac/Yr.

+ Increase water infiltration rates.

+ Decrease water temperature.

+ Increase forage production.

   .30 AUMs/Ac/Yr*$15/AUM = $4.50/Ac/Yr

+ Improve wildlife habitat for fish, elk and other species.

Average Annual Benefits:        $4.50/Ac/Yr

�

- Chemical brush control.

   $25/Ac*.2Ac Treated/Ac = $5/Ac  or  $.51/Ac/Yr

   (8%, 20Yr)

- Fencing

  $.66/Ft*3.28Ft/Ac = $2.17/Ac or $.19/Ac/Yr

  (8%, 30Yr)

- Pipeline

  $.85/Ft*.44ft/Ac = $.37/Ac or $.03/Ac/Yr

  (8%, 30Yr)

- Prescribed grazing

  $.50/Ac/Yr

- Spring Development

  $2,500*.0057Units/Ac = $1.43/Ac or $.13/Ac/Yr

  (8%, 30Yr)

- Stock trough

  $500*.00076Units/Ac = $.38/Ac or $.21/Ac/Yr

  (8%, 10Yr)

- Increased risk (land, labor, capital) 

Total Installation Costs:                   $9.85/Ac

Average Annual Costs (8%):        $1.57/Ac/Yr                                                         

�

�
MOTION DOCKET

96-472.

#### State ex rel. Vance v. Marikis.

Franklin App. No. 94APD12-1784. On request for oral argument. Request denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 136 Referred in House (RFH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 136

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 12, 2015

      Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To amend chapter 21 of title 5, United States Code, to provide that 
 fathers of certain permanently disabled or deceased veterans shall be 
  included with mothers of such veterans as preference eligibles for 
                    treatment in the civil service.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Gold Star Fathers Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. PREFERENCE ELIGIBLE TREATMENT FOR FATHERS OF CERTAIN 
              PERMANENTLY DISABLED OR DECEASED VETERANS.

    Section 2108(3) of title 5, United States Code, is amended by 
striking subparagraphs (F) and (G) and inserting the following:
                    ``(F) the parent of an individual who lost his or 
                her life under honorable conditions while serving in 
                the armed forces during a period named by paragraph 
                (1)(A) of this section, if--
                            ``(i) the spouse of that parent is totally 
                        and permanently disabled; or
                            ``(ii) that parent, when preference is 
                        claimed, is unmarried or, if married, legally 
                        separated from his or her spouse;
                    ``(G) the parent of a service-connected permanently 
                and totally disabled veteran, if--
                            ``(i) the spouse of that parent is totally 
                        and permanently disabled; or
                            ``(ii) that parent, when preference is 
                        claimed, is unmarried or, if married, legally 
                        separated from his or her spouse; and''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendment made by this Act shall take effect 90 days after the 
date of enactment of this Act.

            Passed the Senate May 11, 2015.

            Attest:

                                                 JULIE E. ADAMS

                                                             Secretary.
```
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1014/2006

of 4 July 2006         

establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 of 21 December 1994 on detailed rules for the application of the import arrangements for fruit and vegetables (1), and in particular Article 4(1) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The standard import values referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 shall be fixed as indicated in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 5 July 2006.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 4 July 2006.

For the Commission

J. L. DEMARTY            

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

----

(1)OJ L 337, 24.12.1994, p. 66. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 386/2005 (OJ L 62, 9.3.2005, p. 3).

----

ANNEX

to Commission Regulation of 4 July 2006 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

----

(1)  Country nomenclature as fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 750/2005 (OJ L 126, 19.5.2005, p. 12). Code ‘            999            ’ stands for ‘of other origin’.

----
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

RULE 13a-14(a) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Frederick R. Hipp, President and Chief Executive Officer of AMF Bowling Worldwide, Inc., certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended July 2, 2006 of AMF Bowling Worldwide, Inc.;
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: April 2, 2007



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Frederick R. Hipp                
|Frederick R. Hipp                    
|President and Chief Executive Officer
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 871/2006

of 15 June 2006         

determining for the 2005/06 marketing year actual production of unginned cotton and the ensuing guide price reduction

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to the Act of Accession of Greece, and in particular Protocol 4 on cotton (1),

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1051/2001 of 22 May 2001 on production aid for cotton (2), and in particular the third indent of Article 19(2) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1.   For the 2005/06 marketing year actual production of unginned cotton is hereby determined as:

2.   The amount by which the guide price is to be reduced for the 2005/06 marketing year shall be:

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 15 June 2006.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)  Protocol as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1050/2001 (OJ L 148, 1.6.2001, p. 1).

(2)OJ L 148, 1.6.2001, p. 3.

(3)OJ L 210, 3.8.2001, p. 10. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1486/2002 (OJ L 223, 20.8.2002, p. 3).

----
JIM BRIDENSTINE

1ST DISTRICT, OKLAHOMA

216 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON, DC 20515 (2021225-2211 

# Cor^gregg ^r^iteD^ *tate g



# ot t^je

2448 EAST SiST STREET, SUITE 5150 TULSA, OKLAHOMA ^Q13^ 

### ^tepre g entatibe:^ wouge of (918)935-3222 

### Mas'fJittgtott, MC 20515-3601 COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

Bridenstine. House.gov Facebook.com/CongressmanJ imBridenstine Twitter.com/RepJBridenstine

May 21, 2014
The Honorable Gina McCarthy Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, D.C. 20460 Dear Administrator McCarthy: I write to you today regarding EPA's as yet unpublished proposal to regulate carbon dioxide (CO Z ) from existing power plants. Implementation of a final rule will almost certainly negatively affect human welfare, economic growth and employment in the United States. Accordingly, it is essential that the agency's proposal be subject to a public comment period of not less than 120 days. This is an entirely reasonable expectation: The pending proposal will undoubtedly be more complex than the proposed rule concerning COz emissions from new power plants. The public comment period for that rule was extended to 120 days. It has been reported that your proposal will present a broad range of options for reducing net COZ emissions from existing plants. Given the vast and costly burdens a final rule is likely to place on electricity consumers, electricity generators and the U.S. economy, comments should be requested on the merits of withdrawing the proposal rather than promulgating a final rule. The purpose of the Clean Air Act is to regulate air pollutants; it was never intended to regulate common atmospheric gases such as CO 2 . Your agency's proposed rule constitutes a massive overreach of authority driven by a political agenda. To the extent you succeed in shutting down existing generation capacity and increasing electricity prices, you will also succeed in diminishing the well-being and prosperity of the American people. If EPA promulgates and implements a final rule, jobs will be lost as coal-fired plants become uneconomic and are forced to close. The reliability of the nation's electric power system may be compromised as costs increase and sources are diminished. EPA must account for and not seek to deny or understate these impacts. I again request that you reconsider regulating CO Z from existing generation facilities. If EPA proposes a rule, the agency must apply valid science and unbiased economic analysis, and not less than 120 days must be allowed for public comment.

Si rely,

J Bridenstine ember of Congress

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
# C_2005132EN.01001901.xml

| 28.5.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 132/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 132/19

---

Action brought on 6 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-159/05)

(2005/C 132/35)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 6 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by D. Maidani, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 June 2002 on financial collateral arrangements (1) and, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 June 2002 on financial collateral arrangements (1) and, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| 2. | order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period allowed for transposition of the Directive into national law expired on 27 December 2003.

---

(1)  OJ L 168, 27.06.2002, p. 43.

1

---
Clark v. Progressive Insurance Corp., No. S0480-03 CnC (Norton, J., Aug.

4, 2005)

[The text of this Vermont trial court opinion is un official. It has been reformatted from the original. The accuracy of the text and the accompanying data included in the Vermont trial cou rt opinion database is not guaranteed.]

STATE OF VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT Chittenden County, ss.: Docket No. S0480-03 CnC

CLARK

v.

PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE CO.

ENTRY

Following trial and judgment in which she was foun d to owe Defendant $9,885, Plaintiff seeks to amend judgment by reducing the amount by the common fund doctrine. Defendant oppo ses this motion and seeks court costs for fees and deposition costs.

The common fund doctrine is an equitable principle established as a way of spreading costs for a party who prevails thr ough litigation orprolonged settlement in establishing a fund that is intended to benefit others

as well. Daniels v. Vt. Ctr. for Crime Victims Ser vs. , 173 Vt. 521, 522 (2001) (mem.). It allows the litigating party to s ubtract a portion of its attorney’s fees and costs from the amount to which the other parties are

entitled. Id . The purpose of this is clear; parties who benefi t from a judgment but have not contributed to the costs of r ecovery or participated in the litigation should not get the windfall of a ful l share while the party that litigated bears all of the expense. Guiel v. Allst ate Ins., Co. , 170 Vt. 464, 469–70 (2000) (emphasizing that the doctrine is onl y appropriate in certain equitable situations).

In this case, Plaintiff claimed extensive damages. She was reimbursed for some of her medical expenses by her insurer, Defendant, and quickly obtained a settlement from the tortfeas or’s insurer. She then sought to recover further from Defendant, which led to the immediate case. At trial, the jury found that Plaintiff’s damages d id not exceed the tortfeasor’s insurance policy and were, in fact, mu ch less than her settlement. Given those findings, the court finds it inequitable to reduce Defendant’s recovery through the common fund doctri ne. First, Plaintiff was more than adequately compensated for any expens e she incurred in obtaining a quick settlement that outstripped her d amages. Second, Defendant has now had to expend its own attorney’s fees and costs to recover what it was eligible for under its insuranc e contract. Another reduction would merely punish Defendant.

Next, Plaintiff seeks to deny Defendant’s motion f or costs. V.R.C.P.

54. Plaintiff bases her motion on the fact that sh e has also incurred costs. Under Rule 54, the court has discretion to assign o r deny costs associated with taking depositions. As these costs are minima l and not particularly onerous in light of its success, Defendant’s motion for deposition costs isdenied. The $50 for court costs is, however, grant ed.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to amen d is Denied. Defendant’s motion for costs is Granted in part and Denied in part.

Dated at Burlington, Vermont________________, 2005

.

____________________________ Richard W. Norton, Judge