alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Sergio Alfredo COC-LACAN, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-70286

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted January 16, 2018 *

Filed January 19, 2018

Kenneth Larkin VanDerhoef, Attorney, Higuera & VanDerhoef PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner

Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, David Kim, Trial *492Attorney, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Sergio Alfredo Coc-Lacan, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8-U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, *Zehatye v. Gonzales,*453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that, even if Coc-Lacan’s family constitutes a particular social group, he failed to establish a nexus between the harm he experienced in the past and fears in the future and a protected ground. *See 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 such group” (emphasis in original)); *Molina-Estrada v. INS,*293 F.3d 1089, 1095 (9th Cir. 2002) (petitioner failed to establish nexus where “the evidence would *permit*a finding” that he was persecuted on account of his family membership, but did not *“compel*that finding” (emphasis in original)); *see also Zetino v. Holder,*622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An [applicant’s] desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground.”). Contrary to Coc-Lacan’s contentions, the BIA did not err in declining to reach his additional arguments regarding past persecution or a well-founded future fear of persecution. *See Simeonov v. Ashcroft,*371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004). Thus, his asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
No. 11-10430.

#### Gerholdt *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
EXHIBIT 32

                         CERTIFICATION OF 10-QSB REPORT
                                       OF
                         CHADMOORE WIRELESS GROUP, INC.
                    FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2005



1.       The undersigned are the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial
         Officer of Chadmoore  Wireless Group,  Inc. This  Certification is made
         pursuant  to  Section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002.  This
         Certification  accompanies  the  10-QSB  Report of  Chadmoore  Wireless
         Group, Inc. for the quarter ended September 30, 2005.

2.       We certify that such 10-QSB Report fully complies with the requirements
         of Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and
         that the information  contained in such 10-QSB Report fairly  presents,
         in all  material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and  results of
         operations of Chadmoore Wireless Group, Inc.


This Certification is executed as of February 3, 2006.


                                 /s/ Robert W. Moore
                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                 Robert W. Moore, Chief Executive Officer



                                 /s/ Stephen K. Radusch
                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                 Stephen K. Radusch, Chief Financial Officer

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to  Chadmoore  Wireless  Group,  Inc. and will be retained by Chadmoore
Wireless Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities  Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.

This certificate  accompanies the Form 10-QSB to which it relates, is not deemed
filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission  and is not  incorporated  by
reference into any filing of Chadmoore Wireless Group, Inc. under the Securities
Act of 1933,  as amended,  or the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934,  as amended
(whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-QSB),  irrespective of any
general incorporation language contained in such filing.
#### Raphael R. HAMILTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joe M. ALLBAUGH, Director, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-5038

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Filed January 26, 2018

(D.C. No. 4:14-CV-00270-CVE-PJC) (N.D. Oklahoma)

Raphael R. Hamilton, Pro Se

Diane L. Slayton, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK, for Respondent-Appellee

Before PHILLIPS, McKAY, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.

*526ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*

Monroe G. McKay, Circuit Judge

Appellant seeks a certificate of appeala-bility to appeal the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition.

Appellant entered a blind plea, which is a plea without an agreement, to First Degree Felony Murder during his trial. A few months later, he filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which was denied. In his § 2254 petition, he raised the claim that his guilty plea was not voluntary and knowing, and was entered in violation of his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. He asserted that he had difficulty understanding the consequences of a guilty plea and that he was not made fully aware of the State’s evidence against him before entering the plea.

The district court denied Appellant’s § 2254 petition in a nine-page order, in which the court explained that “[Appellant] fail[ed] to identify how his attorneys’ preparations for trial were deficient or explain how he was otherwise pressured into entering a blind plea.” (District Ct. Order at 8.) The district court concluded that “[Appellant’s] unsupported claim that he entered a blind plea of guilty under pressure is contradicted by the record,” which included Appellant’s “averment, made under oath, that he was satisfied with his attorney’s assistance” and had not been coerced to enter his plea. *Id.*at 7-8; *see Blackledge v. Allison,*431 U.S. 63, 73-74, 97 S.Ct. 1621, 52 L.Ed.2d 136 (1977) (“Solemn declarations in open court carry a strong presumption of verity.”)..

After thoroughly reviewing Appellant’s brief and the record on appeal, we conclude that reasonable jurists would not debate the correctness of the district court’s ruling. *See Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000). For substantially the same reasons given by the district court, we DENY Appellant’s request for a certificate of appealability and DISMISS the appeal.

*

 This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
No. 11-1247.

#### North Hudson Regional Fire & Rescue et al. *v.*National Association for the Advancement of Colored People et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8264 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8264

   To amend chapter 2003 of title 54, United States Code, to protect 
majority federally owned counties from loss of taxable acreage, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 16, 2020

  Mr. Gosar introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend chapter 2003 of title 54, United States Code, to protect 
majority federally owned counties from loss of taxable acreage, 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. NO NET LOSS OF TAXABLE ACREAGE.

    (a) Amendment.--Chapter 2003 of title 54, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 200311. No net loss of taxable acreage.
    ``Amounts from the Fund may not be used by the Secretary of the 
Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture to acquire private land within 
a county in which 50 percent or more of the land is owned by the 
Federal Government, unless the Secretary acquiring the private land 
disposes of an equal amount of federally owned land within that county 
during the same fiscal year to ensure no net loss of private, taxable 
acreage in that county.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 2003 of 
title 54, United States Code, is amended by adding after the item 
relating to section 200310 the following new item:

``Sec. 200311. No net loss of taxable acreage.''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 10.15


 





	A	CHANGE
REQUEST • CONTRACT OR ORDER
 	 


 


	Strategic
    asset purchasing


 


	SUPPLIER	DATE:
    September 16, 2013
	Transformateurs Pioneer  Ltée	 
	612 Chemin Bernard	 
	Granby, Qc	 
	J2J OH6	 
	Attn: Raymond Haddad	 


 





	No.
        modif.

         

        4
	Contract
        No.

         

        4600017040
	Order
    No.	Responsible
        H-Q

         

        Nicole
        Caron
	Tél.:
        (514) 840-3000, poste 5251

        Téléc.:
        (514) 840-3322






 






A-  CURRENT MODIFICATION





 


It
is proposed to extend for a period of six months the framework contracts # 171040 and #17108 on the same commercial conditions
in order to complete the update of technical specifications and preparations for the call for proposals.


 





If
you agree, the extension period will now read, from April 1, 2014 until September 30, 2014.


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 





  


B-  SUPPLIER


 


		Q	We
                                         agree to execute the requested amendment at the same prices and primary conditions as
                                         in the contract, it being agreed that this application does not constitute a commitment
                                         on the part of Hydro-Quebec, and that only the authorization to proceed with "C",
                                         approval of which is the contractual responsibility of Hydro-Québec, will allow
                                         the supplier to proceed.



 





	Delivery date:	 		/s/ Raymond
    Haddad	 	September
                                         24, 2013




 
	 	 		Signature	 	Date
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 ̈    We
refuse to execute the requested change	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	Signature	 	Date
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 ̈    Non applicable	 	 	 	 



 








  


C-
AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED


 


You
may proceed immediately with this change


 





	Nicole Caron	 	/s/ Nicole Caron	 	December 4, 2013




	Responsible H.Q.	 	Signature 	 	Issue Date 



 








c.c Supplier Quality Assurance
(C.Q.) 


 


Application
to amend contract 17108_16 Sept. 13 doc /99.01.25
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. CP21-45-000]

                    On January 29, 2021, Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC (Florida Gas) filed an application pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) [1]                                          for authorization to construct, own, and operate its Big Bend Project. On February 22, 2022, Florida Gas filed a notice of withdrawal of its application. No motion in opposition to the notice of withdrawal has been filed, and the Commission has taken no action to disallow the withdrawal. Pursuant to Rule 216(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure,[2]                                          the withdrawal of the application became effective on March 10, 2022, and this proceeding is hereby terminated.                

Dated: March 25, 2022.

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

# Footnotes

1.                             15 U.S.C. 717f(c).                    
        Back to Citation      

2.                             18 CFR 385.216(b) (2021).                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 2022-06805 Filed 3-30-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
IA

★

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 31

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to allow

the States to limit the period of time United States Senators and Representatives may serve.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 9, 1997

Mr. SANFORD introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to

the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States to allow the States to limit the period of time

United States Senators and Representatives may serve.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several

8 States within seven years after the date of its submission

9 for ratification:
2

HJ 31 IH1S

1 ‘‘ARTICLE—

2 ‘‘SECTION 1. Each State or the people thereof may

3 prescribe the maximum number of terms to which a per4 son may be elected or appointed to the Senate of the Unit5 ed States.

6 ‘‘SECTION 2. Each State or the people thereof may

7 prescribe the maximum number of terms to which a per8 son may be elected to the House of Representatives of the

9 United States.

10 ‘‘SECTION 3. This article shall become inoperative un11 less it shall have been ratified by the legislatures of three12 fourths of the several States within seven years from the

13 date of its submission to the States by the Congress.’’.

Æ
IV

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 323

Expressing the sense of the Congress that the Attorney General should

be an elected officer of the Federal Government.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AUGUST 6, 1998

Mr. HALL of Texas (for himself and Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi) submitted

the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee

on the Judiciary

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress that the Attorney General should be an elected officer of the Federal Government.

Whereas the Attorney General of the United States is the

chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government;

Whereas the Attorney General is nominated by the President

and confirmed by the Senate;

Whereas once confirmed by the Senate, the Attorney General

serves at the will of the President and is a member of

the President’s cabinet;

Whereas the Attorney General is often confronted with a conflict of interest when an investigation of alleged misconduct by high-level officials of the Federal Government

is necessary;
2

•HCON 323 IH

Whereas Attorneys General in several recent administrations

have been confronted with possible conflicts of interest;

Whereas these conflicts seriously compromise the Attorney

General’s ability to investigate alleged misconduct by

high-level officials of the Federal Government;

Whereas the public lacks confidence in the Attorney General’s

independence when an investigation of alleged misconduct

by high-level officials of the Federal Government is necessary;

Whereas the creation of the independent counsel in 1978 did

not solve the problem of the Attorney General’s lack of

independence;

Whereas since the ‘‘Iran-Contra’’ investigation 22 independent counsels have been appointed, and their investigations

have cost taxpayers nearly $130,000,000;

Whereas 43 States provide for the election of their attorneys

general; and

Whereas the independent election of the Attorney General

would protect the Attorney General from conflicts of interest when investigations of alleged misconduct by highlevel officials of the Federal Government are necessary:

Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that—

3 (1) the Attorney General should be an elected

4 officer of the Federal Government; and
3

•HCON 323 IH

1 (2) the Congress should propose an amendment

2 to the Constitution providing for the independent

3 election of the Attorney General.

Æ
114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6375 

AN ACT 

To provide for consideration of the extension under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of nonapplication of 

No-Load Mode energy efficiency standards to certain 

security or life safety alarms or surveillance systems. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 6375 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Power And Security 

3 Systems (PASS) Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF NONAPPLICATION OF NO-LOAD 

5 MODE ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARD TO 

6 CERTAIN SECURITY OR LIFE SAFETY ALARM 

7 OR SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS. 

8 (a) Section 325(u)(3)(D)(ii) of the Energy Policy and 

9 Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(D)(ii)) is amend10 ed— 

11 (1) by striking ‘‘2015’’ and inserting ‘‘2021’’; 

12 and 

13 (2) by striking ‘‘2017’’ and inserting ‘‘2023’’. 

14 (b) Section 325(u)(3)(E) of the Energy Policy and 

15 Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(E)) is amend16 ed— 

17 (1) in clause (ii), by striking ‘‘July 1, 2017,’’ 

18 and inserting ‘‘the effective date of the amendment 

19 under subparagraph (D)(ii)’’; and 

20 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

21 ‘‘(iv) TREATMENT IN RULE.—In the 

22 rule under subparagraph (D)(ii) and sub23 sequent amendments the Secretary may 

24 treat some or all external power supplies 

25 designed to be connected to a security or 

26 life safety alarm or surveillance system as 
3 

•HR 6375 EH

1 a separate product class or may extend the 

2 nonapplication under clause (ii).’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 6, 

2016. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6375 

AN ACT 

To provide for consideration of the extension under 

or surveillance systems. standards to certain security or life safety alarms application of No-Load Mode energy efficiency the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of non-
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 15d-14(a) (17 CFR 240.15d-14(a)) AND SECTION 302
                       OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, John F. Kennedy, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of ChrisKen Partners
Cash Income Fund L.P., a Delaware limited partnership;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

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

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; and

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report are conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by
this report based on such evaluation, and;

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

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

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the 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 who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: November 15, 2004

/s/ John F. Kennedy
------------------------------------------
John F. Kennedy
President
ChrisKen Income Properties, Inc.,
     Managing General Partner
ChrisKen Partners Cash Income Fund L.P.