alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Fabian Canseco VASQUEZ, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-2441

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 20, 2017

Decided: July 31, 2017

Jonathan S. Greene, GREENE LAW FIRM, LLC, Columbia, Maryland, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readier, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director, Julia J. Tyler, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Fabian Canseco Vasquez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the IJ’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). For the reasons set forth below, we deny the petition for review.

The agency’s decision regarding whether an applicant has complied with the one-year time limit for filing an asylum application or established changed or extraordinary circumstances justifying waiver of that time limit is not reviewable by any court. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2012); *see also Mulyani v. Holder,*771 F.3d 190, 196-97 (4th Cir. 2014); *Gomis v. Holder,*571 F.3d 353, 358-59 (4th Cir. 2009). Although 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (2012) provides that any provision under the Immigration and Nationality Act which limits or eliminates judicial review shall not be construed as precluding review of constitutional claims or questions of law, we have held that the question of whether an asylum application is untimely or whether the changed or extraordinary circumstances exception applies “is a *discretionary determination*based on factual circumstances.” *Gomis, 571 F.3d*at 358. We have reviewed the record and Vasquez’s brief and conclude that he fails to raise a colorable constitutional claim or question of law. Thus, we lack jurisdiction to review the Board’s finding that Vasquez’s asylum application *129was untimely. We further conclude that the Board’s denial of Vasquez’s applications for withholding of removal and protection under the CAT is supported by substantial evidence and the record does not compel a different result. *Id. at*359; *Gandziami-Mickhou v. Gonzales,*445 F.3d 351, 354 (4th Cir. 2006).

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*
# Gazzetta ufficiale C 164A/29 m

| | ISSN 1977-0944 |
| --- | --- |
| Gazzetta ufficiale
  dell’Unione europea | C 164A |
| | |
| Edizione in lingua italiana | Comunicazioni e informazioni | 57.° anno29 maggio 2014 |

ISSN 1977-0944

Gazzetta ufficiale

dell’Unione europea

C 164A

Edizione in lingua italiana

Comunicazioni e informazioni

57.° anno29 maggio 2014

---

| Numero d'informazione | Sommario | pagina |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Avvisi |
| | PROCEDIMENTI AMMINISTRATIVI |
| | Banca centrale europea |
| 2014/C 164A/01 | Proroga del termine per la presentazione delle domande per la nomina a membro della Commissione amministrativa del riesame | 1 |

Numero d'informazione

Sommario

pagina

V   Avvisi

PROCEDIMENTI AMMINISTRATIVI

Banca centrale europea

2014/C 164A/01

Proroga del termine per la presentazione delle domande per la nomina a membro della Commissione amministrativa del riesame

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2014/C 164A/02 | Cronistoria delle GU C A Concorsi | 2 |

2014/C 164A/02

Cronistoria delle GU C A Concorsi

2

| IT | |
| --- | --- |

IT

---

V Avvisi

PROCEDIMENTI AMMINISTRATIVI

Banca centrale europea

| 29.5.2014 | IT | Gazzetta ufficiale dell’Unione europea | CA 164/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2014

IT

Gazzetta ufficiale dell’Unione europea

CA 164/1

---

Proroga del termine per la presentazione delle domande per la nomina a membro della Commissione amministrativa del riesame

2014/C 164 A/01

La BCE rende noto che il termine per la presentazione delle domande in relazione all’invito a manifestare interesse per la nomina di esperti esterni a membri e membri supplenti della Commissione amministrativa del riesame della Banca centrale europea (Francoforte sul Meno, Germania), pubblicato sulla Gazzetta ufficiale dell’Unione europea il 1o maggio 2014 (1) è prorogato fino al 2 giugno 2014.

Francoforte sul Meno, 23 maggio 2014

---

(1)  GU C 133 A dell’1.5.2014, pag. 1.

---

29.5.2014

| 29.5.2014 | IT | Gazzetta ufficiale dell’Unione europea | CA 164/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

IT

Gazzetta ufficiale dell’Unione europea

CA 164/2

---

CRONISTORIA DELLE GU C A CONCORSI

2014/C 164 A/02

Si riporta qui di seguito l'elenco delle GU C A pubblicate nell'anno in corso.

Salvo indicazione contraria, le GU sono pubblicate in tutte le versioni linguistiche.

| 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 | |
| 136 | |
| 137 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 140 | |
| 145 | |
| 152 | |
| 160 | |
| 163 | |
| 164 | |

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

136

137

(DE/EN/FR)

140

145

152

160

163

164

---
IIB 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6062 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 9, 2024 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

AN ACT 

To restore the ability of the people of American Samoa 

to approve amendments to the territorial constitution 

based on majority rule in a democratic act of self-determination, as authorized pursuant to an Act of Congress 

delegating administration of Federal territorial law in 

the territory to the President, and to the Secretary of 

the Interior under Executive Order 10264, dated June 

29, 1951, under which the Constitution of American 

Samoa was approved and may be amended without requirement for further congressional action, subject to 

the authority of Congress under the Territorial Clause 

in article IV, section 3, clause 2 of the United States 

Constitution. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

HR 6062 RFS

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

3 SECTION 1. REMOVAL OF RESTRICTION ON AMENDMENTS 

4 TO OR MODIFICATIONS OF THE CONSTITU5 TION OF AMERICAN SAMOA. 

6 Section 12 of Public Law 98–213 (48 U.S.C. 1662a) 

7 is repealed. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 8, 2024. 

Attest: KEVIN F. MCCUMBER, 

Clerk. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 (a) OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT**I, Phillip J. Smith, certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Stater Bros. Holdings Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: May 9, 2007/s/ Phillip J. Smith
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, O/B/O C. M. G., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. S. W. J., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-1394

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 08, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Appeal is dismissed.
#### Abraham CAMPOS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Jerilynn YENNE, District Attorney for Brazoria County, Texas, Defendant-Appellee

No. 16-41666

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 18, 2017

Abraham Campos, Pro Se

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Abraham Campos, Texas prisoner # 721237, moves this court for authorization to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) following the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C, § 1983 complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Campos argues that he stated a claim for a denial of due process based on the State’s refusal to release evidence for DNA testing. Campos has failed to show that he should be allowed to proceed IFP on appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b) or that his appeal of the district court’s judgment presents a nonfrivolous issue. *See Skinner v. Switzer,*562 U.S. 521, 534, 131 S.Ct. 1289, 179 L.Ed.2d 233 (2011); *Dist. Att’ys Office for Third Jud. Dist. v. Osborne,*557 U.S. 52, 67-68, 129 S.Ct. 2308, 174 L.Ed.2d 38 (2009); *Carson v. Polley,*689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982).

Even if DNA testing would show that Campos’s blood was not found on any of the listed evidence, such evidence would not be sufficient to overcome the evidence presented against him at trial. The testimony at trial was clear that Campos was not bleeding when he was arrested on the night of the murder. After detailing the evidence against Campos, the district court stated that the DNA evidence in question would not have cast any doubt on that evidence and would have corroborated the testimony that Campos was not bleeding at the time of his arrest. Campos has produced nothing to contradict this conclusion. Campos’s motion for leave to proceed IFP therefore is DENIED.

The facts surrounding the IFP decision are inextricably intertwined with the merits of the appeal. *See Baugh v. Taylor,*117 F.3d 197, 202 & n.24 (5th Cir. 1997). The *324appeal presents no nonfrivolous issues and is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

The district court’s dismissal and the dismissal of this appeal count as two strikes for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). *See Coleman v. Tollefson,*— U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 1759, 1763-64, 191 L.Ed.2d 803 (2015); *Adepegba v. Hammons,*103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). We caution Campos that if he accumulates three strikes under § 1915(g), he will not be able to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. *See*§ 1915(g).

IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

*

 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.
#### Allen Dale WILLIAMS, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6478

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 29, 2017

Decided: September 21, 2017

*229David Bernard Hargett, HARGETT LAW, PLC, Glen Allen, Virginia, for Appellant. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Allen Dale Williams, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting in part the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Williams has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED*
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Robert J. Salazar and Elia Salazar v. HP Texas I LLC dba HP 

Texas LLC, HPA Texas Sub 2016-1 LLC, Ser Texas LLC, 

and Pathlight Property Management Co.

Appellate case number: 01-19-00926-CV

Trial court case number: 2019-17589

Trial court: 127th District Court of Harris County

On November 22, 2019, appellants, Robert J. Salazar and Elia Salazar, filed a notice 

of appeal of the trial court’s November 4, 2019 order denying their application for a 

temporary injunction. Appellants have filed an emergency motion for temporary injunction 

in this Court, seeking to enjoin appellees from leasing, selling, or making changes to real 

property that appellants had previously rented from appellees, to give appellants possession 

of the property pending resolution of this appeal without requiring any rental payment, and 

to reduce appellants’ supersedeas bond to $1,500. At the Court’s request, appellees, HPA 

Texas Sub 2016-1 LLC, Pathlight Property Management Co., HP Texas I LLC dba HP 

Texas LLC, and SER Texas LLC, filed a response in opposition to appellants’ emergency 

motion. All parties agree that appellees were awarded possession of the property in a 

separate lawsuit in the county civil court at law of Harris County, from which appellants 

appealed in a separate appeal currently pending in this Court in Cause No. 01-19-00330-

CV. The county civil court at law set appellants’ supersedeas bond at $28,350. Appellants 

have not superseded the judgment.

On December 20, 2019, appellants filed a motion for leave to file a reply in support 

of their emergency motion by December 24, 2019, but have not filed any reply to date. 

We deny appellants’ motions. See TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 24.007 (“A 

judgment of a county court may not under any circumstances be stayed pending appeal 

unless, within 10 days of the signing of the judgment, the appellant files a supersedeas 

bond in an amount set by the county court.”); see also Marshall v. Hous. Auth. of the City 
2

of San Antonio, 198 S.W.3d 782, 786 (Tex. 2006) (“[I]f a proper supersedeas bond is not 

filed, the judgment may be enforced, including issuance of a writ of possession evicting 

the tenant from the premises.”); cf. TEX. R. APP. P. 24 (providing for suspension of 

enforcement of judgment and review of trial court order on supersedeas).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: Evelyn V. Keyes

 Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: January 9, 2020
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Thomas E. Mara, ChiefExecutive Officer of The FINOVA Group Inc., certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form10-Q of The FINOVA Group Inc.;

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.               Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4.               The registrant’s other certifying officer andI are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15 (e) and 15d-15 (e)) for theregistrant and we have:

 

a)              Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;

 

b)             Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

c)              Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

 

5.               The registrant’s other certifying officer andI have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

a)              All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b)             Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date: August 11, 2003 | /s/ Thomas E. Mara                      |
|-----------------------|-----------------------------------------|
|                  | Thomas E. Mara  Chief Executive Officer |

 

1

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Saleh O. HAMID, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-4735

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 23, 2017

Decided: July 18, 2017

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Eric J. Brignac, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. John Stuart Bruce, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, First Assistant United States Attorney, Phillip A. Rubin, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Saleh O. Hamid appeals his 30-month sentence for theft of government funds. Hamid argues that the district court erred in calculating the loss amount and restitution amount. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

“In determining whether a district court properly applied the advisory [Sentencing] Guidelines, including application of any sentencing enhancements, we review the district court’s legal conclusions *de novo*and its factual findings for clear error.” *United States v. Layton,*564 F.3d 330, 334 (4th Cir. 2009). Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in calculating a reasonable amount of loss. *See*U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2Bl.l(b)(l) & cmt, n.3 (2015). We also determine that the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing restitution in an amount equal to its loss calculation under the Guidelines. *See United States v. Catone,*769 F.3d 866, 875, 877 (4th Cir. 2014).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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*
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 Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of Pacific Continental
Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2008
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), we, Hal M. Brown, Chief Executive Officer, and Michael A. Reynolds,
Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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) 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/ Hal M.
      Brown
            /s/ Michael A.
      ReynoldsHal
      M. Brown
            Michael
      A. ReynoldsChief
      Executive Officer
            Chief
      Financial Officer





Dated:  March
30, 2009