alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). jl f / Invent o ry NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T R OX AN A MAR I B E L NO L AS C OALVA RE Z, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R J r ., A tto rn e y G e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 74114 A ge nc yN o. A 098- 559- 156 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d J a nua ry11, 2010 ** B efo re: B E E Z E R , T R O T T , an d B Y B E E , C i rcu i tJu d g es. R ox ana M ar i bel N ol as co-A l vare z, a nat i ve and ci t i ze n o f E l S al vado r, pet i t i on s f

or re vi ew fr om the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s di sm i ss al of her 

# FI LED JAN 19 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSj l f

/ I n v en t or y 08- 74114 2 appe a l f r om the i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s de ni a l of he rappl i c a t i ons f

orw i thhol di ng of re m ov al and rel i ef

un der the C on vent i on A gai nstT orture ( “ C A T ”) . T he B IA no t ed th a t p e titio n e rw a s n o t e lig ib le f o ra s y lu m b a s e d o n h e rf a ilu r e to f

ile atim e ly a s y l um appl i c a t i on. T he B I A de ni e d pe t i t i one r ’ s appl i c a t i ons f orw i thhol di ng of r e m ova l a nd C A T ba s e d on he rf a i l ur e t o e s t abl i s h pe r s e c ut i on orthe l i ke l i hood of t orture i n E l S al vado r. P e t i t i one rc ont e nds tha tthe B I A e rr e d byde ny i ng he rappl i c a t i on f ora s y l um base d o n h erfa i l ure t o est abl i sh pastpers ec ut i on or a w el l -f ou nd ed fe arof future p e r s e c u tio n . P e titio n e ra lle g e d f e a ro f g a n g a c tiv ityin E l S a lv a d o r . P et i t i on erdo es no tchal l enge the B IA ’ s hol di ng thatshe had fa i l ed t o fi l e a t i m e l ya s y l um appl i c a t i on, ortha ta n e xc e pt i on t o the t i m e l i ne s s r e qui r e m e nt appl i e d, a nd the r e f

or e pe t i t i one rha s w a i ve d a nya r gum e nt s c onc e rni ng w he the rs he m e r ite d a s y lu m r e lie f

. Se e M a r t i n ez - Se rr a n o v . I

NS , 94 F . 3d 12 56 , 12 59 (9th C i r. 19 96 ) ( i ss ues notspec i fi ca l l y r ai se d and ar gu ed i n a party’ s openi ng bri ef ar e w ai ved). P et i t i on erra i se s no i ss ues bef ore thi s c ou rtconcerni ng the B IA ’ s deni al of he rappl i c a t i ons f

orw i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l orr e l i e f

unde rthe C onve nt i on A g a in s t T o rtu r e . P e titio n e r , th e r e f o r e , f a ils to r a is e a n yis s u e s p r o p e r lyb e f o r e th is c o u rt. P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
EXHIBIT 31

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302


I, Glenn Geller, Chief Executive Officer and of Cabinet
Acquisition Corporation, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed the attached report on Form 10-Q.

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

4.   I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
     controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules)
     for the registrant and have:

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

b)   designed such internal control over financial reporting to
     provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of
     financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements
     for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
     accounting principles;

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

d)   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 (the
     registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
     annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably
     likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control
     over financial reporting; and

5.   I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, 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 in the design or operation of
     internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's
     ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data
     and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material
     weaknesses in internal controls; and

b)   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
     other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
     internal controls.

      Date: November 13, 2009                /s/ Glenn Geller
                                          President and Director
EXHIBIT 99

        Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18
                            of the United States Code

     I, E. James Ferland, Chief Executive Officer of PSEG Energy Holdings LLC,
to the best of my knowledge, certify that (i) the Annual Report of PSEG Energy
Holdings LLC on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 (the "Periodic
Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the
Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the PSEG Energy Holdings LLC.


                                        /s/ E. James Ferland
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        E. James Ferland
                                        PSEG Energy Holdings LLC
                                        Chairman of the Board and Chief
                                        Executive Officer
                                        February 25, 2003
RE: The Revised MeBr is Now in ROCIS

Frey, Nathan J. to: Philip Schwartz, Jeremy Arling 09/01/2011 10:22 AM

We have concluded our review of the 2012 MeBR CUE proposed rule. Thanks all.

-----Original Message-----

From: Schwartz.Philip@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Schwartz.Philip@epamail.epa.gov

]

Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 3:21 PM

To: Frey, Nathan J.; Arling.Jeremy@epamail.epa.gov

Subject: The Revised MeBr is Now in ROCIS

(Embedded image moved to file: pic08188.gif)
No. 11-10436.

#### Nesbitt *v.*Illinois.

App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 32.1



Pyramid Oil Company



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 of
Pyramid Oil Company (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the Report), I, Michael D. Herman, 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, 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 results of operations of the Company.



Dated: June 13, 2014



| | MICHAEL D. HERMAN      
| | -----------------------
| | Michael D. Herman      
| | Chief Executive Officer
#### Constantino Colorado HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-72381

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 13, 2018 *

Filed February 21, 2018

Alexander H. Lubarsky, Esquire, Attorney, Community Legal Centers, San Ma-teo, CA, for Petitioner

Chief Counsel ICE; Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Aaron Nelson, Trial Attorney, Shahrzad Baghai, Attorney, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Constantino Colorado Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo whether a conviction constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude. *Tall v. Mukasey,*517 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not err in determining that Colorado Hernandez’s convictions under California Penal Code §§ 350(a)(1) and 647(b) are crimes involving moral turpitude, and therefore that he is ineligible for cancellation of removal. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C) (aliens convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude are not eligible for cancellation of removal). We are not persuaded by Colorado Hernandez’s contentions that precedent establishing his convictions are crimes involving moral turpitude do not control. In *Tall v. Mukasey,*517 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2008), the court held that a conviction under California Penal Code § 350(a), including all subsections, is a crime involving moral turpitude, and in *Rohit v. Holder,*670 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2012), the court analyzed only whether California Penal Code § 647(b) is a crime involving moral turpitude, notwithstanding any related crimes.

We do not address Colorado Hernandez’s contentions that *Tall*and *Rohit*were wrongly decided, because a three-judge panel lacks authority to' overrule prior precedent. *See De Mercado v. Mukasey,*566 F.3d 810, 816 (9th Cir. 2009).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2


                   CONSENT OF INDEPEDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEER



    As independent petroleum engineers, we hereby consent to the use of
our name in this Amendment No. 2 to Form S-3 by McMoRan Oil & Gas Co.
We further consent to the incorporation by reference of our estimates of
reserves and present value of future net reserves as of May 31, 1997 in
the Form S-3.


                                       RYDER SCOTT COMPANY
                                       PETROLEUM ENGINEERS



Houston, Texas
September 2, 1997
#### IN RE: Scott Louis PANETTI, Petitioner

No. 17-50880

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed March 13, 2018

Gregory William Wiercioch, University of Wisconsin Law School, Madison, WI, for Petitioner

Tina J. Miranda, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Texas, Austin, TX, for Respondent

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Following our July 2017 decision to reverse the district court’s denial of appointment of counsel and expert funding under 18 U.S.C. § 3599, the petitioner filed a motion in district court seeking retroactive *nunc pro tunc*appointment of counsel dating back to October 2014. The district court denied him. He now seeks a writ of mandamus from this court directing the lower court to vacate its judgment and retroactively appoint counsel. As we have consistently explained, a writ of mandamus is an “extraordinary remedy” that is appropriate only in narrow circumstances.1 One necessary predicate is that “the party seeking issuance of the writ have no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires.”2 Even setting aside the other circumstances required to justify the extraordinary issuance of a writ of mandamus, the petitioner fails to show that he possesses no other means to contest his denial of retroactive appointment of counsel.3 Ac*450cordingly, the petitioner’s request for a writ of mandamus must be DENIED.

*

 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.

1

*. See, e.g., In re United States,*397 F.3d 274, 282 (5th Cir. 2005) (per curiam).

2

. *Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Dist. of Columbia,*542 U.S. 367, 380, 124 S.Ct. 2576, 159 L.Ed.2d 459 (2004) (internal quotations omitted).

3

. *See Harbison v. Bell,*556 U.S. 180, 183, 129 S.Ct. 1481, 173 L.Ed.2d 347 (2009) ("The District Court’s denial of [petitioner's] motion to authorize his federal counsel to represent him in state clemency proceedings was clear*450ly an appealable order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.").
U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

633 3rd St. NW, Suite 200

Washington, DC 20001 

November 21, 2022

Arizona Secretary of State

1700 W Washington St Fl 7

Phoenix AZ 85007

Dear Secretary Hobbs, 

The Election Systems & Software (ES&S) Voting System (EVS) version 6.0.4.0 (ESSEVS6040) 

was certified by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) on May 3, 2019.1 Details and 

documentation regarding the testing and certification of ESSEVS6040 are publicly available on 

the EAC’s website at https://www.eac.gov/voting-equipment/evs-6040. 

ES&S’s application for certification of EVS 6.0.4.0 was approved for testing on October 15, 2018. 

In accordance with the EAC’s Testing and Certification Manual,2 the October 15, 2018, 

Application Approval Letter3 designated SLI Compliance, an EAC-accredited voting system 

testing laboratory (VSTL), as the lead VSTL for this testing engagement. 

During the testing of the ESSEVS6040, from application approval on October 15, 2018, to 

certification on May 3, 2019, SLI Laboratory complied with the EAC’s Voting System Testing 

Laboratory Manual4 and maintained its accreditation, as shown by the dates on its Certificate of 

Accreditation.5

For additional information on the EAC Testing and Certification Program, please see the How a 

Voting System Becomes Certified: Overview of the EAC Certification Process document located 

in the EAC FOIA Reading Room. The Declaration of Mark A. Robbins document located in the 

EAC FOIA Reading Room also discusses in greater detail the EAC Testing and Certification 

Program.

Sincerely,

________________________________

Mark A. Robbins, Interim Executive Director 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission

1 https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/voting_system/files/EVS6040_Cert_Scope%28FINAL%29.pdf

2 https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/eac_assets/1/28/Cert%20Manual%207%208%2015%20FINAL.pdf

3 https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/voting_system/files/Application.Approval.Letter3.pdf

4 https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/eac_assets/1/28/VSTLManual%207%208%2015%20FINAL.pdf

5

https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/voting_system_test_lab/files/SLI_Compliance_Certificate_of_Accreditation

011018.pdf
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 7 (Friday, January 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1444-1445]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-597]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. CP97-165-000]


Colorado Interstate Gas Company; Notice of Request Under Blanket 
Authorization

January 7, 1997.
    Take notice that on December 20, 1996, Colorado Interstate Gas 
Company (CIG), P.O. Box 1087, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80944, filed 
in Docket No. CP97-165-000 a request pursuant to Sections 157.205 and 
157.211 of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 
CFR 157.205, 157.211) for authorization to establish a new delivery 
point for Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCo), under CIG's 
blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP83-21-000 pursuant to 
Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act, all as more fully set forth in the 
request that is on file with the Commission and open to public 
inspection.
    CIG states that during the summer of 1996, it constructed 
approximately 21 miles of 12-inch-diameter (Indian Creek Lateral) and 
installed two 1478 horsepower compressors (Big Canyon Compressor 
Station) in Potter County, Texas pursuant to the provisions of Section 
311 of the Natural Gas Policy Act (NGPA) and the Commission's 
regulations under the NGPA. CIG states that these facilities have been 
used as receipt facilities to receive gas for the account of PSCo, a 
local distribution company, for transportation to their distribution 
system.
    CIG states that it received a request from PSCo requesting CIG to 
establish a certificated delivery point (Nichols Delivery Point) off 
its Indian Creek Lateral. CIG states that PSCo will use

[[Page 1445]]

the Nichols Delivery Point to deliver gas to Southwestern Public 
Service Company. CIG states the new delivery point could deliver up to 
110,000 Mcf of natural gas per day.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after 
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to 
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of 
the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to 
the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefor, 
the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the 
day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed 
and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a 
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for 
authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-597 Filed 1-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
# C_2022237EN.01002801.xml

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/28

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 3 March 2022 — A.G. v Lietuvos Respublikos generalinė prokuratūra

(Case C-162/22)

(2022/C 237/37)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: A.G.

Other party: Lietuvos Respublikos generalinė prokuratūra

Question referred

Must Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector, read in conjunction with Articles 7, 8, 11 and 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as prohibiting the competent public authorities from using data retained by providers of electronic communications services which may provide information on the data of, and communications made by, a user of a means of electronic communications, in investigations into corruption-related misconduct in office, irrespective of whether access to those data has been granted, in the particular case, for the purposes of combating serious crime and preventing serious threats to public security?

---

(1)  OJ 2002 L 201, p. 37.

---
# C_2022424EN.01003202.xml

| 7.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 424/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 424/32

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 7 September 2022 — Criminal proceedings against MV

(Case C-583/22)

(2022/C 424/43)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

MV

Other party: Generalbundesanwalt beim Bundesgerichtshof

Questions referred

| 1. | In view of the principle of equal treatment under Article 3(1) of Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA, (1) and against the background of Article 3(5) of that decision, in the case of an actually existing situation of a cumulative sentence involving convictions handed down in Germany and in another EU Member State, can a sentence be imposed for the offence committed in Germany even where a notional inclusion of the sentence imposed in the other EU Member State would mean that the maximum permissible level under German law for a cumulative sentence for non-life custodial sentences is exceeded? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In view of the principle of equal treatment under Article 3(1) of Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA, (1) and against the background of Article 3(5) of that decision, in the case of an actually existing situation of a cumulative sentence involving convictions handed down in Germany and in another EU Member State, can a sentence be imposed for the offence committed in Germany even where a notional inclusion of the sentence imposed in the other EU Member State would mean that the maximum permissible level under German law for a cumulative sentence for non-life custodial sentences is exceeded?

| 2. | If the first question is answered in the affirmative:
  Must the taking into account of the sentence imposed in the other EU Member State, as provided for under the second sentence of Article 3(5) of Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA, take place in such a way that the disadvantage resulting from the impossibility to form a subsequent cumulative sentence is to be specifically documented and justified in the sentencing for the offence committed in Germany, in accordance with the principles governing the formation of cumulative sentences under German law? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative:

Must the taking into account of the sentence imposed in the other EU Member State, as provided for under the second sentence of Article 3(5) of Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA, take place in such a way that the disadvantage resulting from the impossibility to form a subsequent cumulative sentence is to be specifically documented and justified in the sentencing for the offence committed in Germany, in accordance with the principles governing the formation of cumulative sentences under German law?

---

(1)  Council Framework Decision of 24 July 2008 on taking account of convictions in the Member States of the European Union in the course of new criminal proceedings (OJ 2008 L 220, p. 32).

---