alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Giovanni Aristides DURAN, AKA Giovanni Duran, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-70469

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted October 23, 2017 *

Filed October 30, 2017

Anya McLean, McLean Law Firm PLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner

Alexander Jacob Lutz, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, OIL, Janette L. Allen, Esquire, Trial Attorney, Anthony Cardozo Payne, Senior Litigation Counsel, Colette Jabes Winston, Esquire, Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

*757Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Giovanni Aristides Duran, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for deferral of removal 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, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. *Shrestha v. Holder,*590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on Duran’s omission from his first two asylum applications of information regarding the harm his brother experienced from the MS-13 gang. *See Shrestha,*590 F.3d at 1047; *Zamanov v. Holder,*649 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2011) (an applicant “present[ing] substantially different accounts of mistreatment in successive asylum petitions” can constitute a material alteration sufficient to support an adverse credibility finding). Duran’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. *See Zamanov,*649 F.3d at 974.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM UNAUDITED
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE NINE MONTH PERIOD
ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
10-Q FILING.
</LEGEND>
<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>                                           6,002
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,274
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,415
<INVENTORY>                                         75
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                12,497
<PP&E>                                           5,207
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,859
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  15,585
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,572
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            13
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,173
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    15,585
<SALES>                                         14,558
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,558
<CGS>                                            6,621
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   20,074
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    561
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                561
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       561
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.04


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Alberto ORTIZ-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-10707 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(July 13, 2017)

Yvette Rhodes, Arthur Lee Bentley, III, James A. Muench, Joseph K. Ruddy, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Juan Alberto Ortiz-Lopez, Pro Se

Before HULL, WILSON and JULIE CARNES Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The government’s motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant to the appeal waiver in Appellant’s plea agreement is GRANTED. *See United States v. Bushert,*997 F.2d 1343, 1350-51 (11th Cir. 1993) (holding that *857a sentence appeal waiver will be enforced if it was made knowingly and voluntarily); *United States v. Bascomb,*451 F.3d 1292, 1297 (11th Cir. 2006) (holding that a defendant may knowingly and voluntarily waive his right to appeal both constitutional and non-constitutional issues).
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

PUBLIC MEETING ON ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR 

COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHERS

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Avenue, SW.

Washington, DC 20585

Monday, September 24, 2012

9:00 am – 12:00 pm ET, Room 8E-089

Purpose

The Department will present its methodology for conducting the energy conservation 

standards rulemaking for commercial clothes washers. The Department also will seek 

input from stakeholders on its planned methodologies, assumptions, and data sources.

Agenda

9:00-9:15 am Welcome, Opening Remarks, and Agenda Review

Doug Brookman

9:15-9:20 am Rulemaking Introduction

Stephen Witkowski

9:20-9:45 am Regulatory History, Test Procedure Issues, Rulemaking 

Process Overview

Timothy Sutherland

9:45-10:20 am Market and Technology Assessment, Screening Analysis, and 

Engineering Analysis 

Timothy Sutherland

10:20-10:30 am Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

Ben Barrington

10:30-10:45 am Break

10:45-11:45 am Markups Analysis, Energy and Water Use Analysis, Life-Cycle 

Cost and Payback Period Analysis, Shipments Analysis, 

National Impact Analysis, Consumer Subgroup Analysis, 

Utility Impact Analysis, Employment Impact Analysis, 

Emissions Analysis, and Regulatory Impact Analysis

Maithili Iyer

11:45-12:00 pm Other Issues and Comments, Closing Remarks

Stephen Witkowski

12:00 pm Adjourn
|   | (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 result of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                                                                        |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  /s/      Charif Souki                                                                                 |
| Charif      Souki                                                                                           |
| Chief      Executive Officer of Sabine Pass LNG-GP, Inc., the general partner of      Sabine Pass LNG, L.P. |

----
Exhibit 31

      Exhibit 31:  Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications

Re:   Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust 2006-NC5 (the "Trust")

I, Steven Shapiro, the senior officer in charge of securitizations for the
depositor, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D
required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form
10-K of the Trust (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

2.    Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a
whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other
information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by
this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4.    Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in
this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the
Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations
under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and

5.    All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for
asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of
compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be
included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and
Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this
report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of
noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on
Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Countrywide Home Servicin
LP, NC Capital Corporation and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company,

Date: May 14, 2007

/s/ Steven Shapiro
By: Steven Shapiro
Title: Vice President (Senior officer in charge of securitization of Morgan
Stanley ABS Capital I Inc., the depositor)
#### Steven S. COWAN, Movant-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-3085

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: October 12, 2017

Filed: October 17, 2017

Laine Cardarella, Fed. Public Defender, Kansas City, MO, for appellant.

Bruce E. Clark, Asst. U.S. Atty., Kansas City, MO, for appellee.

Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Federal prisoner Steven Cowan, who pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, appeals the district court’s1 order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion that challenged his sentence under Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015) (invalidating residual clause of Armed Career Criminal Act as unconstitutionally vague); Cowan specifically challenged his in*856creased base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1. Upon de novo review, we find that the district court properly denied relief, because Cowan’s sentence was calculated under the advisory Guidelines, which are not subject to void-for-vagueness challenges. See Beckles v. United States, 580 U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 886, 895, 197 L.Ed.2d 145 (2017). Accordingly, we affirm. We also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

1

. The Honorable Greg Kays, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.
EXHIBIT 99.1
                                                                    ------------


                         WIRELESS XCESSORIES GROUP, INC.
                         -------------------------------


     Statement Under Oath of Principal Executive Officer regarding facts and
     Circumstances relating to exchange act filings.


               I, Stephen Rade, Chief Executive Officer, state and attest that:

               (1)  To the best of my knowledge and belief, based upon a review
                    of the covered reports of Wireless Xcessories Group, Inc.,
                    and except as corrected or supplemented in a subsequent
                    covered report.

                    o    No covered report contained any untrue statement of a
                         material fact as of the end of the period covered by
                         such report (or in the case of a report on Form 8K or
                         definitive proxy materials, as of the date on which it
                         was filed); and

                    o    No covered report omitted to state a material fact
                         necessary to make the statements in the covered report,
                         in light of the circumstances under which they were
                         made, not misleading as of the end of the period
                         covered by such report (or in the case of a report on
                         Form 8-K or definitive proxy materials, as of the date
                         on which it was filed).

               (2)  I have not reviewed the contents of this statement with
                    Wireless Xcessories Group, Inc.'s Audit Committee.

               (3)  In this statement under oath, each of the following, if
                    filed on or before the date of this statement, is a "covered
                    report."

                    o    The Form 10K filed by Wireless Xcessories Group, Inc.
                         covering the fiscal year ended December 31, 2001.

                    o    All reports on Form 10Q, all reports on Form 8K and all
                         definitive proxy materials of Wireless Xcessories
                         Group, Inc. filed with the Commission subsequent to the
                         filing of Form 10-K identified above; and

                    o    Any amendments to any of the foregoing.





/s/ Stephen Rade                            Subscribed and sworn to
----------------
Stephen  Rade                               before me this fourteenth day of
----------------
August 14, 2002                             August, 2002
----------------
#### DeMarcus Mandell BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-7482

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 29, 2017

Decided: April 6, 2017

DeMarcus Mandell Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

DeMarcus Mandell Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certifícate 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 motion 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 Brown has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Brown’s motion for 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*
EXHIBIT
23.1




CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





As independent registered public
accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our report dated
September 17, 2010 relating to the consolidated financial statements of American
DG Energy Inc. and its subsidiaries as of and for the years ended December 31,
2009 and December 31, 2008 included in this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report
(Form 10-K/A) into the Company’s previously filed Registration Statements on
Form S-8 (File No. 333-146628 and File No. 333-151287) and Form S-3, as amended
(File No. 333-167392).





/s/ CATURANO AND COMPANY,
INC.


Caturano
and Company, INC.





September
17, 2010


Boston,
Massachusetts
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. Section 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Sino Fibre Communications, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year end of December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Matthew Mecke, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| |   

Dated this 28th day of June, 2007.

MATTHEW MECKE
Matthew Mecke
Cheif Executive Officer



















---
#### Henry Lee BRADLEY, a/k/a Henry L. Bradley, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert STEVENSON, III, Warden of Broad River, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-7387

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 17, 2017

Decided: June 14, 2017

*758Henry Lee Bradley, Appellant Pro Se. James Anthony Mabry, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Henry Lee Bradley seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting 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 ap-pealability 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 tod conclude that Bradley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6163 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6163

       To amend the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 
   Reconciliation Act of 1996 to repeal the denial of assistance and 
benefits for individuals with certain drug-related convictions, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 22, 2016

 Mrs. Watson Coleman introduced the following bill; which was referred 
to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on 
Agriculture, 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 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 
   Reconciliation Act of 1996 to repeal the denial of assistance and 
benefits for individuals with certain drug-related convictions, and for 
                            other purposes.

    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 ``Federal Benefits Fairness and 
Restoration Act of 2016''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF DENIAL OF ASSISTANCE AND BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN DRUG-
              RELATED CONVICTIONS.

    Section 115 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 
Reconciliation Act of 1996 (21 U.S.C. 862a) is repealed. Any State law 
or regulation enacted under the authority of such section and in effect 
on the date of the enactment of this Act shall have no force or effect 
on or after such date.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7749

JAMES H. BALDWIN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia

Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge.

(CA-01-84-2)

Submitted: February 20, 2002 Decided: March 7, 2002

Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James H. Baldwin, Appellant Pro Se. Marla Graff Decker, Assistant

Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

James H. Baldwin appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Baldwin’s motion

for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the

reasoning of the district court. Baldwin v. Angelone, No. CA-01-

84-2 (E.D. Va. Sept. 21, 2001). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED