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


    Exhibit
10.13

    Loan
Agreement (Short-Term)

    Contract
No. 0153 (2008)

    Borrower:
Dalian Chuming Meat Co. Ltd.

    Business
License No. : WICE No.2102812123719

    Legal
Representative: Huashan Shi

    Address:
2028 Zuanshi St, Wafangdian, Dalian 116000

    Account
Info: Bank of China, Liaoning Branch

    Account
#:

    Tel:
86716585 Fax: 86716686

    Lender:
Bank of China, Liaoning Branch

    Legal
Representative/Officer: Jianhong Wang

    Address:
9 Zhongshan Square, Dalian

    Tel:
82586901 Fax: 82586779

    The
interest shall be paid quarterly. The 20th day of the last month of a
quarter is the expiry date of interest and the 21st day is the payment
date.

    


    1. Amount
of loan: 30,000,000 RMB

    2. Term
of loan: 11 months

    3. Use of
loan: revolving fund

    4.
Interest:

    (a) Fixed
interest rate: 6.1589% (annual)

    (b)
Interest=loan x number of days x daily interest rate

    (c) Daily
interest rate=annual interest rate/360

    5.
Interest payment date:

    6. The
borrower shall receive all the loan within 30 days after 11/27/2008

    7.
Penalty

    (a)
Penalty of overdue repayment: agreed interest rate + 50%

    (b)
Penalty of other usage: agreed interest rate + 100%

    8. Date
of repayment: 10/26/2009

    9. Amount
of repayment: 30,000,000 RMB

    10.
Guaranty agreements:

    (a)
Mortgage contracts entered by the borrower and Dalian Chuming Group Co. Ltd.
(“guarantor”)

    i.
Contract No. 024 (2005)

    ii.
Contract No. 025 (2005)

    iii.
Contract No. 044 (2006)

    iv.
Contract No. 017 (2007)

    v.
Contract No. 023 (2007)

    (b)
Mortgage contract entered by the borrower and Dalian Mingxing Livestock Co. Ltd.
(“guarantor”)----Contract No. 018 (2007)

    (c)
Mortgage contract entered by the borrower and Fengqin Ma and the co-owner of her
property (“guarantor”)----Contract No. 037(2007)

    (d)
Mortgage contract entered by the borrower and Huashan Shi and the co-owner of
his property (“guarantor”)----Contract No. 038(2007)

    11.
Signing date: 11/27/2008
Darrell WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-637

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 27, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
S.P., the mother, Appellant, v. B.J., grandparent and A.E.P., grandparent, Appellees.

No. 4D17-3621

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 23, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# Επίσημη Εφημερίδα C 134A/3 Μα

| | ISSN 1977-0901 |
| --- | --- |
| Επίσημη Εφημερίδα
  της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης | C 134A |
| | |
| Έκδοση στην ελληνική γλώσσα | Ανακοινώσεις και Πληροφορίες | 57ό έτος3 Μαΐου 2014 |

ISSN 1977-0901

Επίσημη Εφημερίδα

της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης

C 134A

Έκδοση στην ελληνική γλώσσα

Ανακοινώσεις και Πληροφορίες

57ό έτος3 Μαΐου 2014

---

| Ανακοίνωση αριθ | Περιεχόμενα | Σελίδα |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Διορθωτικά |
| 2014/C 134A/01 | Διορθωτικό στην προκήρυξη γενικού διαγωνισμού — EPSO/AD/278/14 — Διοικητικοί υπάλληλοι (AD 7) στους ακόλουθους τομείς: 1. Ψηφιακή εγκληματολογική έρευνα 2. Επιχειρησιακή ανάλυση — (Επίσημη Εφημερίδα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης C 88 A της 27ης Μαρτίου 2014) | 1 |

Ανακοίνωση αριθ

Περιεχόμενα

Σελίδα

Διορθωτικά

2014/C 134A/01

Διορθωτικό στην προκήρυξη γενικού διαγωνισμού — EPSO/AD/278/14 — Διοικητικοί υπάλληλοι (AD 7) στους ακόλουθους τομείς: 1. Ψηφιακή εγκληματολογική έρευνα 2. Επιχειρησιακή ανάλυση — (Επίσημη Εφημερίδα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης C 88 A της 27ης Μαρτίου 2014)

(Επίσημη Εφημερίδα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης C 88 A της 27ης Μαρτίου 2014)

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2014/C 134A/02 | Ανακεφαλαιωτικός πίνακας της Επίσημης Εφημερίδας C A Διαγωνισμοί | 2 |

2014/C 134A/02

Ανακεφαλαιωτικός πίνακας της Επίσημης Εφημερίδας C A Διαγωνισμοί

2

| EL | |
| --- | --- |

EL

---

Διορθωτικά

| 3.5.2014 | EL | Επίσημη Εφημερίδα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης | CA 134/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2014

EL

Επίσημη Εφημερίδα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης

CA 134/1

---

Διορθωτικό στην προκήρυξη γενικού διαγωνισμού

EPSO/AD/278/14 — ΔΙΟΙΚΗΤΙΚΟΊ ΥΠΆΛΛΗΛΟΙ (AD 7)

στους ακόλουθους τομείς:

| 1. | ΨΗΦΙΑΚΉ ΕΓΚΛΗΜΑΤΟΛΟΓΙΚΉ ΈΡΕΥΝΑ |
| --- | --- |

1.

ΨΗΦΙΑΚΉ ΕΓΚΛΗΜΑΤΟΛΟΓΙΚΉ ΈΡΕΥΝΑ

| 2. | ΕΠΙΧΕΙΡΗΣΙΑΚΉ ΑΝΆΛΥΣΗ |
| --- | --- |

2.

ΕΠΙΧΕΙΡΗΣΙΑΚΉ ΑΝΆΛΥΣΗ

(
  Επίσημη Εφημερίδα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης C 88 A της 27ης Μαρτίου 2014
  )

2014/C 134 A/01

Στη σελίδα 7, τίτλος VΙΙΙ, σημείο 1:

αντί:

«Προθεσμία (συμπεριλαμβανομένης της επικύρωσης): 29 Απριλίου 2014 στις 12:00 το μεσημέρι, ώρα Βρυξελλών.»

διάβαζε:

«Προθεσμία (συμπεριλαμβανομένης της επικύρωσης): 6 Μαΐου 2014 στις 12:00 το μεσημέρι, ώρα Βρυξελλών.».

---

3.5.2014

| 3.5.2014 | EL | Επίσημη Εφημερίδα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης | CA 134/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

EL

Επίσημη Εφημερίδα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης

CA 134/2

---

ΑΝΑΚΕΦΑΛΑΙΩΤΙΚΌΣ ΠΊΝΑΚΑΣ ΤΗΣ ΕΠΊΣΗΜΗΣ ΕΦΗΜΕΡΊΔΑΣ C A ΔΙΑΓΩΝΙΣΜΟΊ

2014/C 134 A/02

Κατωτέρω παρατίθεται πίνακας των τευχών της Επίσημης Εφημερίδας C A που δημοσιεύθηκαν το τρέχον έτος.

Εκτός αντίθετης ένδειξης, οι Επίσημες Εφημερίδες δημοσιεύονται σε όλες τις κοινοτικές γλώσσες.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 6 | |
| 11 | |
| 19 | |
| 21 | |
| 26 | |
| 27 | |
| 30 | (PL) |
| 35 | |
| 41 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 42 | |
| 43 | |
| 46 | |
| 47 | |
| 48 | |
| 55 | |
| 56 | |
| 60 | |
| 62 | |
| 65 | |
| 73 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 74 | |
| 81 | |
| 88 | |
| 92 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 97 | |
| 98 | |
| 99 | |
| 108 | |
| 109 | |
| 116 | |
| 119 | |
| 133 | |
| 134 | |

5

6

11

19

21

26

27

30

(PL)

35

41

(DE/EN/FR)

42

43

46

47

48

55

56

60

62

65

73

(DE/EN/FR)

74

81

88

92

(DE/EN/FR)

97

98

99

108

109

116

119

133

134

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           4,266
<SECURITIES>                                    22,888
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,356
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     13,271
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                55,711
<PP&E>                                           6,184
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  72,904
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,661
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            19
<OTHER-SE>                                      59,677
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    72,904
<SALES>                                         36,525
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                36,525
<CGS>                                           17,680
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,783
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (171)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (171)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (171)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)


</TABLE>
#### Gurkamal SINGH, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-75870

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 14, 2017 *

Filed February 23, 2017

Don W. Pak, Pak Immigration Group, Inc., Philadelphia, PA, for Petitioner

Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Arthur Leonid Rabin, Trial Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Gurkamal Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, *Silaya v. Mukasey,*524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that, even if Singh was credible and suffered past persecution, conditions for Sikhs in India have changed such that Singh no longer has an objectively reasonable well-founded fear of future persecution. *See Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft,*336 F.3d 995, 1000 (9th Cir. 2003) (agency rationally construed country report and provided an individualized analysis of how changed conditions will affect petitioner’s specific situation). Thus, Singh’s asylum claim fails.

Because Singh failed to satisfy the lower standard of proof for asylum, it necessarily follows that he failed to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

*516' Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Singh’s CAT claim because he failed to establish it is more like than not he would be tortured if returned to India. *See Sowe v. Mukasey,*538 F.3d 1281, 1288-89 (9th Cir. 2008).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 24










                CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS






     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the
registration statement of Raytech Corporation and subsidiaries
on Form S-8 (File No. 33-42420) of our report, which includes
explanatory paragraphs related to the Company's ability to continue
as a going concern, dated March 13, 1997, on our audits of the
consolidated financial statements of Raytech Corporation and
subsidiaries as of December 29, 1996 and December 31, 1995 and for
each of the three fiscal years in the period ended December 29,
1996, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.





                                   COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.


Stamford, Connecticut
March 13, 1997
Edward SIMMONS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2736

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 7, 2018 Rehearing Denied March 12, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
----

| The      Employee                                                     | The      Company                                          |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                  | California      Micro Devices Corporation                 |
|                                                                  |                                                      |
|                                                                  |                                                      |
|                                                                  |                                                      |
|          ___________________________________           |  By___________________________________               |
|           Signature |        Signature  |
|                                                                  |                                                      |
| Printed      Name___________________________                          | Printed      Name___________________________              |
|                                                                  |                                                      |
| Date      Executed:  February __, 2008                      | Date      Executed:  February __,2008           |

----
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
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
 Date:  May 8, 2009
    /s/  Christopher T. HutterChristopher T. HutterVice President, Chief Financial
Officer, Treasurer and Assistant
Secretary
```

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (18  U.S.C.ss.1350),
the  undersigned,  Jamie  B.  Coulter,  Chief  Executive  Officer  of Lone  Star
Steakhouse & Saloon, Inc., a Delaware  corporation (the "Company"),  does hereby
certify, to his knowledge, that:

The  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the period  ended  June 13,  2006 of the
Company (the "Report") fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, and the information  contained in
the Report fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial  condition
and results of operations of the Company.

                                            By: /s/ Jamie B. Coulter
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Jamie B. Coulter
                                                Chief Executive Officer
                                                July 24, 2006
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 21-0181

_________________

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF:

ALIA DAY FLOREN,

 Petitioner and Appellee,

 v.

JAVIER BAUTISTA-SCHEUBER,

 Respondent and Appellant.

O R D E R

_________________

Appellant Javier Bautista-Scheuber has filed a Motion Requesting Permission to 

Surpass the Reply Brief 5000-Words Limit. 

On January 20, 2022, the Court granted Appellant’s motion to electronically file his 

reply brief and ordered that it comply with the applicable Montana Rules of Appellate 

Procedure. 

On January 27, 2022, the Court rejected Appellant’s reply brief because it exceeded 

the 5000-word limit.

The Court has twice ordered Appellant to comply with the Rules of Appellate 

Procedure. We will not entertain any further motions regarding the filing of the reply brief.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant’s motion to exceed the 5000-word limit 

is DENIED.

Appellant’s reply brief is due no later than February 14, 2022. If the brief does not 

comply with the 5000-word limit the case will be submitted to the Court on the briefs filed 

to date.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 3 2022

02/03/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0181
Felipe GRIFALDO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3987

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 7, 2018

Felipe Grifaldo, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See**Baker v. State*, 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2004) ; *State v. King*, 426 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 1982) ; *Grifaldo v. State*, No. 2D16-4199, 2017 WL 922356 (Fla. 2d DCA Mar. 8, 2017) (table decision); *Harris v. State*, 777 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) ; *State v. Broom*, 523 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) ; *Farrell v. State*, 62 So. 3d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) ; *Branch v. State*, 990 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) ; *Thier v. State*, 967 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007).

NORTHCUTT, LUCAS, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1285 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from gross income 

certain federally subsidized loan repayments for dental school faculty. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 24, 2021 

Ms. CLARKE of New York (for herself, Mr. GOSAR, Ms. MENG, and Mr. SIMPSON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, 

in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude 

from gross income certain federally subsidized loan repayments for dental school faculty. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Dental Loan Repay5 ment Assistance Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1285 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN FEDERALLY SUBSIDIZED 

2 LOAN REPAYMENTS FOR DENTAL SCHOOL 

3 FACULTY. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 108(f)(4) of the Internal 

5 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting ‘‘, under 

6 a loan repayment program receiving a grant or contract 

7 under section 748(a)(2) of such Act’’ after ‘‘section 338I 

8 of such Act’’. 

9 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 108(f)(4) 

10 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by strik11 ing ‘‘NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CORPS LOAN REPAY12 MENT PROGRAM AND CERTAIN STATE LOAN REPAYMENT

13 PROGRAMS’’ in the heading thereof and inserting ‘‘CER14 TAIN FEDERAL AND STATE LOAN REPAYMENT PRO15 GRAMS’’. 

16 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

17 this section shall apply to amounts received in taxable 

18 years beginning after the date of the enactment of this 

19 Act. 

20 (d) GAO REPORT.—The Comptroller General of the 

21 United States shall review and report to the appropriate 

22 committees of Congress on the participation of dental pro23 viders and faculty in areas and schools receiving funding 

24 from the Dental Faculty Development and Loan Repay25 ment Program under section 748(a)(2) of the Public 

26 Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 293k–2(a)(2)), including 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1285 IH

1 the extent to which they remain full-time faculty teaching 

2 and practicing in dental clinics located in dental schools, 

3 hospitals, or community-based affiliated sites after receiv4 ing funding from the program. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. 1350

(SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Valassis Communications, Inc. (the
Company), does hereby certify, to the best of his knowledge and belief that:

(1) The Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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 6, 2010 |  |  |  |                        
|                      |  |  |  | /s/ Alan F. Schultz    
|                      |  |  |  | Alan F. Schultz        
|                      |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charlette Dufray JOHNSON, a/k/a Charlotte Johnson, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-7069

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 17, 2017

Decided: October 20, 2017

Charlette Dufray Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Jason Harris Cowley, Seth Morgan Wood, Assistant United States Attorneys, Susan Beth Menzer, Gaston Williams, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Charlette Dufray Johnson appeals the district court’s order construing her petition for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) and the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (2012), as an unauthorized, successive 28 Ú.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and dismissing it without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. A certificate of appealability is not required to address the district court’s jurisdictional dismissal of Johnson’s petition as a successive § 2255 motion. *See United States v. McRae,*793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015).

We conclude the district court properly construed Johnson’s request for Rule 60(b) relief as a successive § 2255 motion over which it lacked jurisdiction. *See Gonzalez v. Crosby,*545 U.S. 524, 531-32, 125 S.Ct. 2641, 162 L.Ed.2d 480 (2005). We also find no reversible error in the district court’s conclusion that it lacked authority to grant relief under the All Writs Act. *See United States v. Basham,*789 F.3d 358, 379 (4th Cir. 2015) (acknowledging this court’s authority to affirm on any basis apparent from record); *United States v. Akinsade,*686 F.3d 248, 252 (4th Cir. 2012) (discussing requirements for coram nobis relief); *United States v. Gamboa,*608 F.3d 492, 495 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[T]he statutory limits on second or successive habeas petitions do not create a ‘gap’ in the post-conviction landscape that can be filled with the common law writs.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); *Massey v. United States,*581 F.3d 172, 174 (3d Cir. 2009) (recognizing same). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.

Additionally, we construe Johnson’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an *225application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. *United States v. Winestock,*340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either:

> (1) newly discovered evidence that ... would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or

> (2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.

28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). Johnson’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion.

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.

*AFFIRMED*