alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Shain Claude COLLINS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director, Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-6835

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 25, 2017

Decided: May 30, 2017

Shain Claude Collins, Appellant Pro Se. Craig Stallard, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Shain Claude Collins seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order 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 ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012); *Reid v. Angelone,*369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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,*629 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 Collins has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny *837leave to proceed m 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*
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 22, 2016

No. 04-16-00518-CV

PAVING & SEAL PRO and Courtnay Brooks,

Appellants

v.

MCCONNELL CARS & RV, LLC,

Appellee

From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015-CI-18929

Honorable David A. Canales, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The trial court clerk has filed a notification of late record, stating that the appellant has 

failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the fee for preparing the clerk’s record and that the 

appellant is not entitled to appeal without paying the fee.

We, therefore, ORDER appellant to provide written proof to this court within ten days of 

the date of this order that either (1) the clerk’s fee has been paid or arrangements have been made 

to pay the clerk’s fee; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the clerk’s fee. If 

appellant fails to respond within the time provided, this appeal will be dismissed for want of 

prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c) (allowing dismissal of 

appeal if appellant fails to comply with an order of this court).

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 22nd day of September, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
# EUR-Lex - 32003D0688 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32003D0688

**2003/688/EC: Commission Decision of 2 October 2003 amending Decision 92/452/EEC establishing lists of embryo collection teams and embryo production teams approved in third countries for export of bovine embryos to the Community as regards the list for Canada (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under document number C(2003) 3427) **

*
Official Journal L 251 , 03/10/2003 P. 0019 - 0020 *

Commission Decision

of 2 October 2003

amending Decision 92/452/EEC establishing lists of embryo collection teams and embryo production teams approved in third countries for export of bovine embryos to the Community as regards the list for Canada

(notified under document number C(2003) 3427)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2003/688/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 89/556/EEC of 25 September 1989 on animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in and importation from third countries of embryos of domestic animals of the bovine species(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 806/2003(2), and in particular Article 8 thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Commission Decision 92/452/EEC(3), as last amended by Decision 2003/391/EC(4), provides that Member States are only to import embryos from third countries where they have been collected, processed and stored by embryo collection teams and embryo production teams listed in that Decision. Canada has requested that an amendment be made to that list as regards entries for that country.

(2) Canada has provided guarantees regarding compliance with the appropriate rules set out in Directive 89/556/EEC and the team concerned has been officially approved for exports to the Community by the veterinary services of that country.

(3) Decision 92/452/EEC should therefore be amended accordingly.

(4) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

In the Annex to Decision 92/452/EEC, the row for the Canadian team No E 733 is replaced by the following:

">TABLE>"

Article 2

This Decision shall apply from 6 October 2003.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 2 October 2003.

For the Commission

David Byrne

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 302, 19.10.1989, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 122, 16.5.2003, p. 1.

(3) OJ L 250, 29.8.1992, p. 40.

(4) OJ L 135, 3.6.2003, p. 25.
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

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Saratoga Investment Corp. (the Company) for the annual period ended
February 29, 2016, as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Christian L. Oberbeck, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Henri J. Steenkamp, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, each certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to our knowledge:

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

2. The information contained
in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: May 17, 2016



/s/ CHRISTIAN L. OBERBECKChristian L. OberbeckChief Executive Officer/s/ HENRI J. STEENKAMPName:

Henri J. SteenkampChief Financial Officer and Chief Compliance Officer
#### Pushpamalar SATCHITHANANTHAN, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 14-70620

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted November 15, 2017 *

Filed November 21, 2017

Stacy Tolchin, Law Offices of Stacy Tol-chin, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner

Alison Marie Igoe, Esquire, Principal Litigation Counsel, OIL, 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

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).

MEMORANDUM **

Pushpamalar Satchithananthan, a native and citizen of Sri Lanka, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. *Najmabadi v. Holder,*597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Satchithananthan’s third motion to reopen as untimely and numerically-barred where the motion was filed more than nine years after the BIA’s final order, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and where Satchithananthan failed to demonstrate changed country conditions in Sri Lanka to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time and number limitations for filing a motion to reopen, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); *see also Najmabadi,*597 F.3d at 987-90 (petitioner failed to show evidence was “qualitatively different” to warrant reopening). We reject Satchithan-anthan’s contentions that the BIA failed to consider record evidence. *See Najmabadi,*597 F.3d at 990-91 (the BIA adequately considered evidence and sufficiently announced its decision).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary decision not to reopen proceedings sua sponte pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). *See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder,*633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011); see *also Matter of G-D-,*22 I. & N. Dec. 1132, 1135 (BIA 1999) (BIA’s consideration of whether a fundamental change in the law warrants reopening involves an exercise of *575its sua sponte authority); *cf. Bonilla v. Lynch,*840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016).

Finally, we reject as without merit Satchithananthan’s contention that intervening case law requires reconsideration of this court’s decision in *Satchithananthan v. Holder,*508 Fed.Appx. 652, 653 (9th Cir. 2013).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
# EUR-Lex - 32002D0637 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32002D0637

**2002/637/EC: Commission Decision of 31 July 2002 amending Decision 92/452/EEC establishing lists of embryo collection teams and embryo production teams approved in third countries for export of bovine embryos to the Community as regards Canada (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under document number C(2002) 2888) **

*
Official Journal L 206 , 03/08/2002 P. 0029 - 0030 *

Commission Decision

of 31 July 2002

amending Decision 92/452/EEC establishing lists of embryo collection teams and embryo production teams approved in third countries for export of bovine embryos to the Community as regards Canada

(notified under document number C(2002) 2888)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2002/637/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 89/556/EEC of 25 September 1989 on animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in and importation from third countries of embryos of domestic animals of the bovine species(1), as last amended by Commission Decision 94/113/EC(2), and in particular Article 8 thereof,

Whereas:

(1) The competent veterinary services of Canada have forwarded a request for amendment to the list established by Commission Decision 92/452/EEC(3), as last amended by Decision 2002/456/EC(4), of teams officially approved in their territory for the export of embryos of domestic animals of the bovine species to the Community.

(2) Guarantees regarding compliance with the requirements specified in Article 8 of Directive 89/556/EEC have been provided to the Commission by the competent veterinary services of the country concerned, and the collection team concerned has been officially approved for exports to the Community.

(3) Decision 92/452/EEC should therefore be amended accordingly.

(4) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

In the Annex to Decision 92/452/EEC the row for the Canadian team E 549 is replaced by the following: ">TABLE>"

Article 2

This Decision shall apply as from the 20th day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 31 July 2002.

For the Commission

David Byrne

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 302, 19.10.1989, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 53, 24.2.1994, p. 23.

(3) OJ L 250, 29.8.1992, p. 40.

(4) OJ L 155, 14.6.2002, p. 60.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rene MOLINA-CUELLAR, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-40141 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed November 14, 2017

Anna Elizabeth Kalluri, Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Rene Molina-Cuellar, Pro Se

Before BENAVIDES, SOUTHWICK, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Rene Molina-Cuellar appeals his sentence for illegal reentry after removal. For the first time on appeal, Molina-Cuellar argues that the district court clearly erred in assessing two criminal history points for his conviction of fraudulent use or possession of identifying information and two more points for his conviction of making a false statement on a driver’s license application, According to Molina-Cuellar, the criminal conduct from those convictions was part of the illegal reentry offense.

As Molina-Cuellar acknowledges, we review the unpreserved challenge under the plain error standard. *See Puckett v. United States,*556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009). Even if the district court erred, any such error was not plain. *See United States v. Valles,*484 F.3d 745, 759 (5th Cir. 2007) (“An error is ‘plain’ if it is clear under current law.”). We so. held in *United States v. Vargas-Garcia,*434 F.3d 345, 349-50 (5th Cir. 2005), rejecting arguments substantially similar to those advanced by Molina-Cuellar. There, as here, because the state crime “could be seen as embodying just such conduct severable by time, place, and harmed societal interest,” the district court did not plainly err by concluding that the criminal conduct was *383separate from the illegal reentry offense. *See id.*at 350.

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
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

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of FFD Financial Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Trent B. Troyer, the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

      (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/Trent B. Troyer
-----------------------------------
Trent B. Troyer
President and Chief Executive Officer
February 14, 2005
<PAGE>   1

                                                                     EXHIBIT 11
                                                                     ----------
<TABLE>
                                 Bacou USA, Inc.
                 Statement Re: Computation of Per Share Earnings
                                   (Unaudited)

<CAPTION>
                                      Three Months Ended                Nine Months Ended
                                      ------------------                -----------------
                                         September 30                    September 30
                                         ------------                    ------------
                                        1996          1995            1996          1995
                                        ----          ----            ----          ----
 
<S>                                 <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>        
Primary:
Weighted average shares
  outstanding                        17,310,897     13,860,000     16,103,963     13,860,000

Net effect of dilutive stock
   options based on the treasury
   stock method using the
   average market price                  43,368              -         30,874              -
                                    -----------    -----------    -----------    -----------

   Total                             17,354,265     13,860,000     16,134,837     13,860,000
                                    ===========    ===========    ===========    ===========

Net income                          $ 5,655,533    $ 4,604,864    $15,410,342    $12,481,844
                                    ===========    ===========    ===========    ===========

Per share amount                    $      0.33    $      0.33    $      0.96    $      0.90
                                    ===========    ===========    ===========    ===========

Fully Diluted:
Weighted average shares
  outstanding                        17,312,200     13,860,000     16,105,106     13,860,000

Net effect of dilutive stock
   options based on the treasury
   stock method using the
   period end market price               43,535              -         30,848              -
                                    -----------    -----------    -----------    -----------
     Total                           17,355,735     13,860,000     16,135,954     13,860,000
                                    ===========    ===========    ===========    ===========

Net income                          $ 5,655,533    $ 4,604,864    $15,410,342    $12,481,844
                                    ===========    ===========    ===========    ===========

Per share amount                    $      0.33    $      0.33    $      0.96    $      0.90
                                    ===========    ===========    ===========    ===========
</TABLE>



                                       15
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 734

To designate the United States courthouse and Federal building to be constructed at the southeastern corner of Liberty and South Virginia Streets

in Reno, Nevada, as the ‘‘Bruce R. Thompson United States Courthouse

and Federal Building’’, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 27 (legislative day, APRIL 24), 1995

Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. BRYAN) introduced the following bill; which

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public

Works

A BILL

To designate the United States courthouse and Federal

building to be constructed at the southeastern corner

of Liberty and South Virginia Streets in Reno, Nevada,

as the ‘‘Bruce R. Thompson United States Courthouse

and Federal Building’’, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1 . DESIGNATION OF BRUCE R. THOMPSON

4 UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE AND FEDERAL

5 BUILDING.

6 The United States courthouse and Federal building

7 to be constructed at the southeastern corner of Liberty
2

•S 734 IS

1 and South Virginia Streets in Reno, Nevada, shall be

2 known and designated as the ‘‘Bruce R. Thompson United

3 States Courthouse and Federal Building’’.

4 SEC. 2. LEGAL REFERENCES.

5 Any reference in a law, regulation, document, record,

6 map, or other paper of the United States to the courthouse

7 and Federal building referred to in section 1 shall be

8 deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Bruce R. Thompson

9 United States Courthouse and Federal Building’’.

Æ
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James ROCKETT, III, a/k/a James Rocket, a/k/a James Rockett, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6829

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 8, 2017

Decided: December 15, 2017

James Rockett, III, Appellant Pro Se. Darryl James Mitchell, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

James Rockett, III, 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 certifícate of appealability. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 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 Rockett 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*