alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Steven Kurt BAUGHMAN, Petitioner-Appellant v. Ron HICKMAN; Lorie Davis, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondents-Appellees

No. 17-20200

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed November 13, 2017

Steven Kurt Baughman, Pro Se

Before DENNIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

*376PER CURIAM:*

Steven Kurt Baughman, SPN # 00505318, was convicted in Texas state court of two counts of attémpted capital murder of a peace officer' He now seeks a certificate of appealability (CGA) to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as time barred and denial of his Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend that dismissal. The district court denied a COA when it dismissed Baugh-man’s § 2254 petition, but it did not rule on a COA in connection with its denial of the Rule 59(e) motion'.

This court may issue a COA only if Baughman has “made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Because the district court denied relief on procedural grounds, this court will grant a COA only if reasonable jurists would debate whether the district court’s procedural ruling is correct and whether Baughman states a valid claim of a constitutional deprivation. *See Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000).

According to Baughman, the district court erred in dismissing his § 2254 petition as untimely without considering his arguments for timeliness that he submitted in compliance with the court’s directives. After reviewing his arguments, we conclude, however, that Baughman has not met the requisite COA standard as to the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. *See Slack,*529 U.S. at 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595. Accordingly, his motion for a COA with respect to dismissal of his § 2254 petition is DENIED.

A COA is required to appeal the denial of a Rule 59(e) motion in a habeas case. *See Ochoa Canales v. Quarterman,*507 F.3d 884, 887-88 (5th Cir. 2007). Because of the lack of a COA ruling by the district court on this issue, we may assume without deciding that we lack jurisdiction over the issue. *See Cardenas v. Thaler,*651 F.3d 442, 443-44 (5th Cir. 2011); Rule 11(a), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. However, we will decline to remand in order for the district court to make the COA determination in the first instance if remand would be futile and a waste of judicial resources. *See United States v. Alvarez,*210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, we DISMISS this matter in part for lack of jurisdiction to rule on Baughman’s COA motion with respect to denial of his Rule 59(e) motion because remand would be futile.

COA DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART.

*

 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.
#### Benito Cruz CAMACHO, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-73005

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted November 15, 2017 *

Filed November 22, 2017

Haitham Edward Bailout, Esquire, Attorney, Law Offices of Haitham E. Bailout,' Burlingame, CA, for Petitioner

Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Jesse David Lorenz, Esquire, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ— U,S. Department of Justice, Civil Divi*617sion/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Cruz Camacho’s request for oral argument, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.

MEMORANDUM **

Benito Cruz Camacho, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an immigration judge’s (“U”) determination under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(a) that he did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture and thus is not entitled to relief from his reinstated' removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the I J’s factual findings, *Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch,*828 F.3d 829, 833 (9th Cir. 2016), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Cruz Camacho failed to establish a reasonable possibility of future persecution in Mexico on account of a protected ground. *See Bolshakov v. INS,*133 F.3d 1279, 1281 (9th Cir. 1998) (no nexus to a protected ground where the evidence “at most shows that [petitioners] had been the victim of criminal activity”); *Ayala v. Holder,*640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if membership in a particular social group is established, an applicant must still show that “persecution was or will be *on account*of his membership in sueh group” (emphasis in original)).

Substantial evidence also supports the conclusion that Cruz Camacho failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of torture by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Mexican government. *See Andrade-Garcia,*828 F.3d at 836-37.

We reject Cruz Camacho’s contentions that the IJ failed to provide a reasoned explanation tor his decision or otherwise erred in his analysis.

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 99.2





CERTIFICATE 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 Annual Report (the “Report”) on the Form 10K of Pana-Minerales S.A. (the “Company”) for the year ended August 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Hector Francisco Vasquez Davis, Chief Executive Officer, President, Chief Financial Officer and
Director, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:





a.The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





b.The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.





Dated: September 28, 2009








HECTOR F. A. DAVIS


Hector
F.A. Davis


Chief Executive Officer, President, Chief








-1-
From: Armen Kamian

To: LEVIN, NANCY

Subject: FW: PM 2.5 Emissions Inventory

Date: Friday, August 09, 2013 10:20:29 AM

Attachments: image004.png

Hi Nancy,

Please see David’s reply below in response t your question on inventory modeling. If you have any

questions, please let me know.

Armen Kamian

Associate Air Quality Planner

Butte County Air Quality Management District

629 Entler Avenue, Suite 15

Chico, CA 95928

530-332-9400, x108

www.bcaqmd.org

From: David Lusk 

Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 9:34 AM

To: Armen Kamian

Subject: RE: PM 2.5 Emissions Inventory

Armen,

We follow ARB’s methodology for most categories. These can be found at:

http://www.arb.ca.gov/ei/areasrc/index0.htm

For the PM2.5 inventory, we developed the woodstove/fireplace emissions numbers using our calculations from the

Rule 207 requirements.

For the PM2.5 inventory, we adjusted the rice tillage calculations b/c they were based on the San Joaquin Valley

data with different soils data and planting schedule. These adjustments were all coordinated with ARB staff in

charge of these areas.

David

David J. Lusk

Senior Air Quality Engineer

Butte County Air Quality Management District

629 Entler Avenue, Suite 15

Chico, CA 95928

Phone: (530) 332-9400, ext. 107

FAX (530) 332-9417

email: dlusk@bcaqmd.org

From: Armen Kamian 

Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 9:01 AM

To: David Lusk
Subject: FW: PM 2.5 Emissions Inventory

See #4 below –

Armen

From: LEVIN, NANCY [mailto:Levin.Nancy@epa.gov] 

Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 10:39 AM

To: Armen Kamian

Subject: PM 2.5 Emissions Inventory

Hi Armen,

Thanks for taking my call this morning. I am reviewing the Chico/Butte County 2012 PM 2.5

emissions inventory for John Ungvarsky, and am just looking for a few pieces of information

to complete my review. I’ve listed them below. Feel free to call if you have questions. My

phone is 415-972-3848.

1. I have a copy of the August 17, 2012 public notice for the September 27, 2012 public

hearing, but I also need a proof of publication or other evidence of publication for

the notice (where and when published);

2. I wanted to confirm that EMFAC11 and OFFROAD11 models were used for the

mobile source inventories, and if not, what models were used;

3. Could you tell me why the base year of 2005 was used, rather than a more recent

year?

4. Would you be able to provide the name or type of methodology used to estimate

general area sources, such as solvent evaporation?

5. Were there any public comments on this inventory?

Thanks!

Regards,

Nancy

______________________________________________

Nancy Levin Air Rules Office

415.972.3848 levin.nancy@epa.gov

US EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne St (AIR-4) San Francisco, CA 94105
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on January 4, 2022, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), UHD Alliance, Inc. (“UHD Alliance”) filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, TCL Moka International Limited, Sha Tin, Hong Kong-China been added as a party to this venture.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and UHD Alliance intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On June 17, 2015, UHD Alliance filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on July 17, 2015 (80 FR 42537).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on November 2, 2021. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on November 26, 2021 (86 FR 67493).                

Suzanne Morris, 

Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2022-05173 Filed 3-10-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-6261

BENJAMIN ROSS DOWNEY, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 v. 

GENE JOHNSON; HELEN F. FAHEY; JAMES SISK, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District 

Judge. (3:08-cv-00199-REP) 

Submitted: May 21, 2009 Decided: June 1, 2009 

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Benjamin Ross Downey, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Benjamin Ross Downey appeals the district court’s 

order denying relief on his civil rights action under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(g) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. Downey v. Johnson, No. 3:08-cv-00199-REP 

(E.D. Va. Jan. 21, 2009). 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. 

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 889 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                 S. 889

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
  coastwise trade for the vessel WOLF GANG II, 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. CERTIFICATE OF DOCUMENTATION.

    Notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 
U.S.C. App. 883), section 8 of the Act of June 19, 1886 (24 Stat. 81, 
chapter 421; 46 U.S.C. App. 289), and section 12106 of title 46, United 
States Code, the Secretary of Transportation may issue a certificate of 
documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
coastwise trade for the vessel WOLF GANG II, United States official 
number 984934.

            Passed the Senate July 29, 1996.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
104th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                 S. 889

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
  coastwise trade for the vessel WOLF GANG II, and for other purposes.
```
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7029 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to remove the differentiation 

between mead and low alcohol by volume wine for purposes of the 

tax imposed on wines. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 18, 2024 

Mr. BLUMENAUER (for himself and Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to remove 

the differentiation between mead and low alcohol by volume wine for purposes of the tax imposed on wines. 

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 ‘‘Bubble Tax Mod5 ernization Act of 2024’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REMOVING DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN MEAD AND 

7 LOW ALCOHOL BY VOLUME WINE. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 5041(h) of the Internal 

9 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows: 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 7029 IH

1 ‘‘(h) LOW ALCOHOL BY VOLUME WINE.— 

2 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of sub3 sections (a) and (b)(1), low alcohol by volume wine 

4 shall be deemed to be still wines containing not more 

5 than 16 percent of alcohol by volume. 

6 ‘‘(2) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this sec7 tion, the term ‘low alcohol by volume wine’ means a 

8 wine— 

9 ‘‘(A) containing not more than 0.64 gram 

10 of carbon dioxide per hundred milliliters of 

11 wine, except that the Secretary may by regula12 tions prescribe such tolerances to this limitation 

13 as may be reasonably necessary in good com14 mercial practice, and 

15 ‘‘(B) which contains less than 8.5 percent 

16 alcohol by volume.’’. 

17 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

18 this section shall apply to wine removed after December 

19 31, 2024. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  RULE 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED

I, Richard A. Petrocelli, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Saratoga Investment Corp.;

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 company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.     The
company's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company and have:



5.     The
company's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company's
auditors and the audit committee of the company's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



Date:
May 23, 2012

/s/ RICHARD A. PETROCELLI Name: Richard A. Petrocelli Chief Financial Officer, Chief Compliance Officer
and Secretary


---



QuickLinks
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Timothy HARRIS, also known as T., also known as Rakeem Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-1403

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: November 28, 2017

Filed: November 30, 2017

Tiffany Gulley Becker, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Missouri, Saint Louis, MO, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Timothy Harris, Pro Se

Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, Timothy Harris challenges the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to drug and firearm charges. His counsel has moved to -withdraw and has submitted a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the sentence was unreasonable and failed to give sufficient weight to mitigating factors.

We conclude that the appeal waiver is enforceable, because our review of the record demonstrates that Harris entered into the plea agreement and the appeal waiver knowingly and voluntarily, see Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir. 1997); the argument falls within the scope of the waiver; and no miscarriage of justice would result from enforcing the waiver, see United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 890-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Furthermore, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the waiver.

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion, and we dismiss this appeal.

1

, The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
# EUR-Lex - 32002R2264 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32002R2264

**Council Regulation (EC) No 2264/2002 of 19 December 2002 amending Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 temporarily suspending the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain industrial, agricultural and fishery products **

*
Official Journal L 350 , 27/12/2002 P. 0001 - 0055 *

Council Regulation (EC) No 2264/2002

of 19 December 2002

amending Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 temporarily suspending the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain industrial, agricultural and fishery products

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 26 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Whereas:

(1) It is in the interest of the Community to suspend partially or totally the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties for a number of new products not listed in the Annex to Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 of 27 June 1996 temporarily suspending the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain industrial, agricultural and fishery products(1).

(2) A number of products which are referred to in the said Regulation should be withdrawn from the list in the Annex to the Regulation because it is no longer in the Community's interest to maintain suspension of autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties or because the description needs to be altered in order to take account of technical product developments.

(3) Products whose description needs to be altered should be regarded as new products.

(4) In view of the large number of amendments coming into force on 1 January 2003, the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 should, in the interests of clarity for the user, be replaced by a completely new version with effect from that date.

(5) Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 should be amended accordingly.

(6) Having regard to the economic importance of this Regulation, it is necessary to invoke the grounds of urgency provided for in point I(3) of the Protocol annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community on the role of national parliaments in the European Union.

(7) Since this Regulation should apply from 1 January 2003, it should enter into force immediately,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 shall be replaced by the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

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

It shall apply with effect from 1 January 2003.

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

Done at Brussels, 19 December 2002.

For the Council

The President

L. Espersen

(1) OJ L 158, 29.6.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1120/2002 (OJ L 171, 29.6.2002, p. 1).

ANNEX

>TABLE>