alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit  31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

I, David Balai, certify that:

<R>  1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A 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  Permanent Master Issuer Plc (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 statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreements; 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: <R>Bank of Scotland</R> plc, as servicer.

<R>Date:  2 November 2007  </R> 

 

/s/  David Balai                   

David Balai

<R>Senior  officer in charge of securitization, Permanent Funding (No. 2) Limited
#### John Douglas HUNTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ron DAVIS, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-15536

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted October 23, 2017 *

Filed November 1, 2017

*729John Douglas Hunter, Pro Se

Before: LEAVY, 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 **

John Douglas Hunter, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging unlawful conditions of confinement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Wilhelm v. Rotman,*680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (2012). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Hunter’s action because Hunter failed to allege facts sufficient to show that ‘any defendant knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to his health. *See Toguchi v. Chung,*391 F.3d 1051, 1057-58 (9th Cir. 2004) (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health; mere negligence is insufficient to establish deliberate indifference).

We reject as unsupported by the record Hunter’s contention that the district judge was biased against him.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,
#### Raphael RUSSELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-35381

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted October 23, 2017 *

Filed October 31, 2017

Raphael Russell, Pro Se

John M. Silk, Esquire, Attorney, Wilson Smith Cochran Dickerson, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: 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 **

Raphael Russell appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his diversity action alleging claims related to his home insurance policy. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s dismissal for failure to comply with court orders, *Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv.,*833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Russell’s action after Russell failed to comply with court orders and meet discovery deadlines, despite being given multiple extensions of time to comply and being warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal. *See id.*(discussing the five factors the district court must weigh before dismissing a case for failure to comply with a court order).

We do not consider documents and facts not presented to the district court. *See United States v. Elias,*921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 7- 12 52

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Man ue l De J es us Garci a Ort iz

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er

v.
Je ffer so n B . Ses si on s, II I, Att or ne y Gene ral of t he Uni te d S ta te s
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt

__ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of a n Ord er o f th e Bo ard of I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Feb ru ary 20 , 20 17 Fi le d: Feb ru ary 26 , 20 18 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re LOKEN, KE LLY, and ERICKSON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.

Gua te m al an ci ti zen Man ue l Garci a Orti z pe ti ti on s fo r rev ie w of an or de r of th e Bo ard of Im

m ig rat io n App eal s di sm is si ng hi s ap p e a l f r o m th e de ci si on of anim m ig rat io n jud ge (IJ ), whi ch de ni ed hi m as y lu m an d wit hh ol di ng of rem ov al

. Orti z 1

so ug ht im m ig rat io n rel ie f ba se d on hi s m e mb ers hi p in th e pa rti cu la r so ci al gr ou p

“ fo rm er m em

be rs of th e mi l i ta ry su ffer in g ga ng th reat s an d vi ol en ce du e to

no ni nv ol ve m en t i n t he ir c riminal be ha vi or .”

Afte r care fu l con si de rat io n of Ortiz ’s arg um en ts an d th e reco rd , we co nc lu de th at su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce su pp or ts th e fin di ng th at he fai le d to sh ow pa st pe rs ecu ti on in Gua te m al a, a well -fo un de d fear of fut ur e pe rs ecu ti on th ere, or a cl ear pr ob ab il it y of fu tu re pers ecu ti on th ere, du e to on e of th e fiv e pr ot ect ed gr ou nd s: race , rel ig io n,
na ti on al it y , m em

be rs hi p in a pa rti cu la r so ci al gr ou p, or po li t i c a l o p i ni on

. See 8 U.S.C. § 11 58 (b )(1 )(B) (i) ; De Cas tro -Gu ti erre z v. Hol de r, 71 3 F.3 d 37 5, 37 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ) (s ta nd ard of rev ie w); Mat ul -Hern an de z v. Hold er, 685 F.3 d 70 7, 71 1- 13 (8 th C i r

. 2 0 1 2 ). Sp eci fic al ly, we de te rm in e th at : (1 ) Orti z’s pr op os ed gr ou p do es no t

co ns ti tu te a pa rti cu la r so ci al gr ou p, se e Gait an v. Hol de r, 67 1 F.3 d 67 8, 68 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ); (2 ) to th e ex te nt Orti z fear ed ge ne ral vi ol en ce in Gua te m al a, hi s fear was no t ba se d o n a pr ot ect ed gr ou nd , se e Al Yati m v. Mu ka se y , 53 1 F.3 d 58 4, 58 8- 89 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ); an d (3 ) he di d no t es ta bl is h th at th e Gua te m al an go ve rn m en t was un ab le

or un wil li ng to co nt ro l th e pr iv at e act or s he fear s, se e Gut ie rrez -Vid al v. Hol de r, 70 9 F.3 d 7 28 , 73 2 (8 th Cir . 20 13 ).

The pe ti ti on is de ni ed . See 8 th Cir . R. 47 B.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

The IJ ’s de ni al of rel ie f un de r th e Co nv en ti on Aga in st Tort ur e is no t on 1 ap pe al . See Ch ay -Vel as qu ez v . Ash cro ft, 3 67 F.3d 75 1, 7 56 (8t h C ir. 2 00 4)

. -2

-
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6398 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6398

    To amend the Small Business Act to provide for the inclusion of 
   unmarried women in the criteria for awarding a grant to a women's 
                            business center.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 29, 2016

  Mr. Israel introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Small Business

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Small Business Act to provide for the inclusion of 
   unmarried women in the criteria for awarding a grant to a women's 
                            business center.

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

SECTION 1. INCLUSION OF UNMARRIED WOMEN IN GRANT CRITERIA.

    Section 29(f)(3) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 656(f)(3)) is 
amended by inserting ``, including those who are not married'' after 
``disadvantaged''.
                                 <all>
```
ZIAI

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

ABRAHAM HOPKINS

NO. 2024 KW 0150

MARCH 22, 2024

In Re: Abraham Hopkins, applying for supervisory writs, 19th

Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, 

No. 01- 11- 0101. 

BEFORE: MCCLENDON, HESTER, AND MILLER, JJ. 

WRIT DENIED ON THE SHOWING MADE. Relator failed to

include: the application for postconviction relief, the district

court' s

ruling denying the application for postconviction

relief, pertinent district court minutes, and the State' s

answer, if any, the commissioner' s report, and any other

portions of the district court record that might support the

claims raised in the writ application. Supplementation of this

writ application and/ or an application for rehearing will not be

considered. See Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal, 

Rules 2- 18. 7 & 4- 9. In the event relator elects to file a new

application with this court, he may do so without the necessity

of obtaining a return date. Any future filing on this issue

should include the entire contents of this application, the

missing items noted above, and a copy of this ruling. 

PMC

CHH

SMM

OURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

Y CLERK OF COURT

FOR THE COURT
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7253

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL EUGENE WALTON, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior

District Judge. (CR-00-3)

Submitted: October 10, 2002 Decided: October 21, 2002

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Eugene Walton, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Michael Cornell

Wallace, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Eugene Walton, Jr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2000). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the

reasons stated by the district court that Walton has not made a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See

United States v. Walton, No. CR-00-3 (E.D. Va. Aug. 13, 2002).

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

GULMARO TORRES-LEON,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 12-35353

D.C. Nos. 1:09-cv-00111-RFC

1:07-cr-00086-RFC-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Richard F. Cebull, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 4, 2013** 

Seattle, Washington

Before: O’CONNOR, Associate Justice (Ret.),*** and TALLMAN and BEA,

Circuit Judges. 

FILED

DEC 20 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

 *** The Honorable Sandra Day O’Connor, Associate Justice (Ret.) for the

Supreme Court of the United States, sitting by designation.
Appellant Gulmaro Torres-Leon appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255

motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence for conspiracy to distribute

methamphetamine. For the following reasons, we affirm. 

1. Montana trial counsel was not ineffective under Strickland v.

Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) and Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) in

failing to pursue a Fifth Amendment double jeopardy defense. The district court

correctly found that there was not enough evidence of a single conspiracy to

support a reasonable attorney in recommending trial over a guilty plea, especially

with the risk of a longer prison sentence. Instead, the evidence showed at least two

conspiracies, occurring at different times and in different places, and involving

different persons, methods, roles, and acts. See Arnold v. United States, 336 F.2d

347 (9th Cir. 1964); United States v. Ziskin, 360 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2003). 

2. Even if trial counsel had erred, Appellant would not meet his burden to

prove a “reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have

pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.” Hill, 474 U.S. at 59.

3. The government did not violate Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)

when it redacted information from investigation documents. The redacted

information did not raise a meritorious double jeopardy defense, and therefore was

not sufficiently material or exculpatory to establish a Brady claim. 

2
AFFIRMED. 

3
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 48 (Friday, March 11, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13974-13975]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05169]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration


North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Article 1904 
Binational Panel Review: Notice of NAFTA Panel Decision

AGENCY: United States Section, NAFTA Secretariat, International Trade 
Administration, Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of NAFTA panel decision in the matter of Ammonium 
Sulphate from the United States of America. (Secretariat File Number: 
MEX-USA-2015-1904-01).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On February 8, 2022, a NAFTA Binational Panel issued its 
Decision in the matter of Ammonium Sulphate from the United States of 
America (Determination on Remand). The Binational Panel remanded the 
Secretaria de Economia's (Economia) Third Determination on Remand and 
ordered Economia to issue a redetermination within 90 days.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vidya Desai, Acting United States

[[Page 13975]]

Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Room 2061, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, 
Washington, DC 20230, (202) 482-5438.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Article 1904 of chapter 19 of NAFTA provides 
a dispute settlement mechanism involving trade remedy determinations 
issued by the Government of the United States, the Government of 
Canada, and the Government of Mexico. Following a Request for Panel 
Review, a Binational Panel is composed to provide judicial review of 
the trade remedy determination being challenged and then issue a 
binding Panel Decision. The NAFTA Binational Panel Decision is 
available publicly at https://can-mex-usa-sec.org/secretariat/report-rapport-reporte.aspx?lang=eng. There are established NAFTA Rules of 
Procedure for Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews and the NAFTA Panel 
Decision has been notified in accordance with Rule 70. For the complete 
Rules, please see https://can-mex-usa-sec.org/secretariat/agreement-accord-acuerdo/nafta-alena-tlcan/rules-regles-reglas/article-article-articulo_1904.aspx?lang=eng.

    Dated: March 8, 2022.
Garrett Peterson,
International Trade Specialist, NAFTA Secretariat.
[FR Doc. 2022-05169 Filed 3-10-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-GT-P
i'IA'I-03-2006 12:17 2124353546 

X 

[LAW DEPARTMEN7J 

225 Park Avenue South (13th Floor) 

New York, New York 1 0003 

Fax No. 212-435-3546 

2124353546 

To: Robert Sp.§l"n,_, "E"'sg'~''--------'-'-Fr£1JJ.' Carlene V. MclntxrY'-------

_llil~~·----------------- ·-------"D-!'.a,.,te"': ___ M=aYr_:,~"-2"'0"0"'6 __________ ~~ 

Companv: Paul, HasU_Q9s, _______ _ P,hone: 212-435-3503 

Fax: 213-627-0705 Pages: 2 (inoludlng p,o'-'v-"er~) _____ _ 

Phone: cc: 

Re: EWR Rates and_Charges 

0 Urgent o For Review o Please Comment o Please Reply o As Requested 

Comments: 

This facsimile transmission !s Intended only for ihe u~~;~ of tha Individual or entity ttl Wl'll¢1'1 it Is addressed and may OOt\tair't 

infom1alion that is privileged, confidenilal and 6X(Impt from djsclonum. If you Z~re not the Intended recipient (Ot someone 

raspoMlbltl fot delivering this fac.simlliJ ttan$mission to the intenctf.ld recipkmt), you arc hereby notified that any dissemlnatiOI'I, 

distribution or copying ot this eomrnuoioation is strictly prohlbitod, If you have fecelved this facsimile transmission In errot, please 

notify us lmmedlataly at the sender's te!ephana numbet l!sted abnve and rrlt\!Ullhe original facsimile tr~u'l$1'n!~ion to us by mp.il. 

PAGE 112' RCVD A1513/2006 9:14:26 AM (Pacific Daylighl Timej' SVR:LAXRF114' DNIS:9998' CSID:2124353546' DURATION (mm-ss):01·06 

EXHIBITZZ 

P.01 
I·IAY-03-2006 12: 18 2124353546 2124353546 P.02 

~ !P'IIImf Alffii!iHfilln/' OF NY & NJ 

FAX AND FIRST CLASS Mi\.IL 

Darrell Buchbinder, General Counsel Carlene V. Mcintyre, Chief, Opinions and Appea/R Division 

May3,2006 

Robert Span, Esq. 

Paul, Hastings, Ja.nofsky & Walker LLP 

515 South Flower Street- 25th Floor 

Los Angelos, CA 09971-2228 

Re: EWR Rates and Charges 

Dear Bob: 

I have received your latest letter dated April 21, 2006. I understaud that you have 

received and reviewed documents provided to you under the Port Autboiity's Freedom of 

Information (FOI) Policy, which were transmitted in response to your records requests. 

We remain willing to work with you to review the information you have received and to 

discuss with yon the relevant computations involved in aniving at the flight fee. While it 

is my understanding that all records within Port Authority files that respond to your 

request were transmitted to yon under the FOI procesg, I believe that a meeting could be 

of some assistance to you in understanding the information you have and in perhaps 

going through the calculation in detail, if necessruy_ Please call me at your earliest 

convenience so that I might schedule a nteeting with you and representatives from the 

Aviation and Financial Departments, whom l believe can assist in this effort. 

Sincerely, 

Carlene 

~v~ V. Mcintyre 

Chief, Opinions and Appeals Division 

Law Department 

225 PorkAvMveSouth. 1Jrh Floor 

New York, NY /DOOJ 

r.- 2 I 2-435-3503 

PAGE 212' RCVD AT 5/3/2006 9:14:26 AM !Pacific Da~ight Time!' SVR:LAXRF1/4' DNIS:9998' CSID:2124353546' DURATION (mm·ss):01-06 TnTAI P-1'1?
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, William N. Plamondon III, hereby 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Ecologic Transportation, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2010 (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 Ecologic Transportation, Inc.                                                         

Dated: March 31, 2011

/s/ William N. Plamondon III
William N. Plamondon III
President, Chief Executive Officer, and Director
(Principal Executive Officer)
Ecologic Transportation, Inc.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by
Section 906, has been provided to Ecologic Transportation, Inc. and will be retained by Ecologic Transportation, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---