alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF     Document 10-3      Filed 07/17/2007     Page 1 of 31

Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF     Document 10-3      Filed 07/17/2007     Page 2 of 31

Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF     Document 10-3      Filed 07/17/2007     Page 3 of 31

Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF     Document 10-3      Filed 07/17/2007     Page 4 of 31

Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF     Document 10-3      Filed 07/17/2007     Page 5 of 31

Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF     Document 10-3      Filed 07/17/2007     Page 6 of 31

Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF     Document 10-3      Filed 07/17/2007     Page 7 of 31

Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF     Document 10-3      Filed 07/17/2007     Page 8 of 31

Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF     Document 10-3      Filed 07/17/2007     Page 9 of 31

Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF     Document 10-3      Filed 07/17/2007     Page 10 of 31

Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF     Document 10-3      Filed 07/17/2007     Page 11 of 31

Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF     Document 10-3      Filed 07/17/2007     Page 12 of 31

Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF     Document 10-3      Filed 07/17/2007     Page 13 of 31

Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF     Document 10-3      Filed 07/17/2007     Page 14 of 31

Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF     Document 10-3      Filed 07/17/2007     Page 15 of 31

Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF     Document 10-3      Filed 07/17/2007     Page 16 of 31

Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF     Document 10-3      Filed 07/17/2007     Page 17 of 31

Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF     Document 10-3      Filed 07/17/2007     Page 18 of 31

Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF     Document 10-3      Filed 07/17/2007     Page 19 of 31

Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF     Document 10-3      Filed 07/17/2007     Page 20 of 31

Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF     Document 10-3      Filed 07/17/2007     Page 21 of 31

Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF     Document 10-3      Filed 07/17/2007     Page 22 of 31

Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF     Document 10-3      Filed 07/17/2007     Page 23 of 31

Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF     Document 10-3      Filed 07/17/2007     Page 24 of 31

Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF     Document 10-3      Filed 07/17/2007     Page 25 of 31

Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF     Document 10-3      Filed 07/17/2007     Page 26 of 31

Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF     Document 10-3      Filed 07/17/2007     Page 27 of 31

Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF     Document 10-3      Filed 07/17/2007     Page 28 of 31

Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF     Document 10-3      Filed 07/17/2007     Page 29 of 31

Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF     Document 10-3      Filed 07/17/2007     Page 30 of 31

Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF     Document 10-3      Filed 07/17/2007     Page 31 of 31
# CE2012390EN.01006901.xml

| 18.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 390/69 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 390/69

---

Thursday 23 June 2011Election of a Vice-President (interpretation of Rule 13(1) of the Rules of Procedure)

P7_TA(2011)0298

European Parliament decision of 23 June 2011 concerning the election of a Vice-President (interpretation of Rule 13(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament)

2012/C 390 E/10

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

| — | having regard to the letter of 15 June 2011 from the Chair of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the letter of 15 June 2011 from the Chair of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs,

| — | having regard to Rule 211 of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 211 of its Rules of Procedure,

| 1. | Decides to append the following interpretation to Rule 13(1):
  ‘If a Vice-President is to be replaced and there is only one candidate, he or she may be elected by acclamation. The President is empowered to decide, at his discretion, whether the election is to take place by acclamation or by a secret ballot. The candidate elected takes the place of his or her predecessor in the order of precedence.’ |
| --- | --- |

1.

Decides to append the following interpretation to Rule 13(1):

‘If a Vice-President is to be replaced and there is only one candidate, he or she may be elected by acclamation. The President is empowered to decide, at his discretion, whether the election is to take place by acclamation or by a secret ballot. The candidate elected takes the place of his or her predecessor in the order of precedence.’

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and the Commission, for information. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and the Commission, for information.

---
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

MICHAEL MINTON,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 5:10cv61-RH/EMT

NURSE JENKINS et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________/

ORDER DENYING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

This case is before the court on the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation, ECF No. 45, and the objections, ECF No. 47. I have reviewed de

novo the issues raised by the objections. Upon consideration, 

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is ACCEPTED and adopted as the court’s

opinion. The motion for preliminary injunction, ECF No. 39, is DENIED without

prejudice.

SO ORDERED on February 24, 2011.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

United States District Judge m
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). 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 VI NC E F L AH E R T Y, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. C OMMI S S I ON E R OF I NT E RNA L RE VENU E, R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 11- 71336 T a x C t . N o. 5903- 09L ME MOR AN DU M *

A ppe a l f r om aD e c i s i on of

the U ni t ed S t at es T ax C ou rt S ubm i tt e d J une 18, 2013 ** B efo re: T A L L M A N , M . S M IT H , an d H U R W IT Z , C i rcu i tJu d g es. V i nc e F l a he rtyappe a l s pr o s e f r om T a x C ourt ’ s de c i s i on di s m i s s i ng f or fa i l ure t o p rose cut e hi s pet i t i on chal l engi ng the C om m i ss i on erof Int ernal R e v e n u e ’s d e te rm in a tio n to c o lle c t b yle v yu n p a id f e d e r a l in c o m e ta x e s f

o r1 9 9 6 . 

# FI LED JU N 20 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 71336 2 W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r26 U . S . C . § 7482( a ) ( 1) . W e r e vi e w f ora n abus e of d is c r e tio n , N

ol iv. C om m ’r , 8 6 0 F. 2 d 1 5 2 1 , 1 5 2 7 ( 9 th Ci r . 1 9 8 8 ) , a n d w e a f f i rm. T he T a x C ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n di s m i s s i ng F l a he rty ’ s pe t i t i on f orf a i l ur e t o pr os e c ut e gi ve n F l a he rty ’ s f a i l ur e t o appe a rf

ortr i a l a nd hi s hi s t oryof d e la y , e s p e c ia llys in c e it h a d a lr e a d yg r a n te d tw o tr ia l c o n tin u a n c e s a n d F la h e rty h a d b e e n w a rn e d m u ltip le tim e s th a t h is c a s e c o u ld b e d is m is s e d . Se e i d. ( not i ng “d is m is s a l f

o rf a ilu r e p r o p e r lyto p r o s e c u te w ill n o rm a llya r is e w h e r e ap a rtyf a ils to ap p e a ra t tr ia l” ) ; see a l so T . C . R . 123( a ) , ( b) ( T a x C ourtm a ydi s m i s s ac a s e a nd e n te rad e c is io n a g a in s t ap e titio n e rw h e r e th e p e titio n e rf a ils p r o p e r lyto p r o s e c u te or fa i l s t o p roce ed as re qu i re d b y the T ax C ou rt ). F l a he rty ’ s c ont e nt i on tha tthe di s m i s s a l of hi s pe t i t i on vi ol a t e d hi s due proces s r i gh t s and hi s r i gh tt o tri al i s unp er suas i ve. W e grantF l aherty’ s m ot i on t o fi l e asubst i tut e r epl y, and i nstructthe C l erk t o f i l e the r e pl ybr i e f

s ubm i tt e d on M a r c h 19, 2013. AF F I RME D.
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO. 3:10cr43/MCR/CJK

3:14cv64/MCR/CJK

ERNEST MALLETY

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendation dated January 4, 2017. ECF No. 640. The parties have been

furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an

opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section

636(b)(1). I have made a de novo determination of any timely filed objections.

Having considered theReport and Recommendation, and any objections thereto

timely filed, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be

adopted. Furthermore, specifically as to Ground Two, the Court agrees with the

Magistrate Judge that Mr. Mallety is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing because the

record in this case affirmatively contradicts his assertion that he would have entered

a guilty plea had the benefits of a guilty plea, including credit for acceptance of

responsibility under the Sentencing Guidelines, been explained to him by his defense

Case 3:10-cr-00043-MCR-CJK Document 652 Filed 03/13/17 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

counsel prior to trial. See United States v. Laetividal-Gonzalez, 939 F.2d 1455, 1465

(11 Cir. 191)(quoting Holmes v. United States, 876 F.2d 1545, 1553 (11 Cir. th th

1989)); see also Peoples v. Campbell, 377 F.3d 1208 (11 Cir. 2004); Tejada v. th

Dugger, 941 F.2d 1551 (11 Cir. 1991); see also Osley v. United States, 751 F.3d th

1214 (11 Cir. 2014). th

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this Order.

2. Defendant’s motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence, ECF No.

519, is DENIED.

3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 13th day of March, 2017.

 s/M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No. 3:10cr43/MCR/CJK; 3:14cr64/MCR/CJK

Case 3:10-cr-00043-MCR-CJK Document 652 Filed 03/13/17 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2298 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2298

 To amend the Clean Air Act to eliminate the corn ethanol mandate for 
                            renewable fuel.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 25, 2019

 Mr. Toomey (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, and Ms. Collins) introduced 
the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 
                    on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Clean Air Act to eliminate the corn ethanol mandate for 
                            renewable fuel.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Restore Environmental Sustainability 
To Our Renewable Energy Act'' or the ``RESTORE Act''.

SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF CORN ETHANOL MANDATE FOR RENEWABLE FUEL.

    (a) Removal of Table.--Section 211(o)(2)(B)(i) of the Clean Air Act 
(42 U.S.C. 7545(o)(2)(B)(i)) is amended by striking subclause (I).
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 211(o)(2)(B) of the Clean Air 
Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(o)(2)(B)) is amended--
            (1) in clause (i)--
                    (A) by redesignating subclauses (II) through (IV) 
                as subclauses (I) through (III), respectively;
                    (B) in subclause (I) (as so redesignated), by 
                striking ``of the volume of renewable fuel required 
                under subclause (I),''; and
                    (C) in subclauses (II) and (III) (as so 
                redesignated), by striking ``subclause (II)'' each 
                place it appears and inserting ``subclause (I)''; and
            (2) in clause (v), by striking ``clause (i)(IV)'' and 
        inserting ``clause (i)(III)''.
    (c) Administration.--Nothing in this section or the amendments made 
by this section affects the volumes of advanced biofuel, cellulosic 
biofuel, or biomass-based diesel that are required under section 211(o) 
of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(o)).
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT 99.1**
ANNUAL SERVICER’S CERTIFICATE
BARCLAYS BANK PLC
GRACECHURCH CARD FUNDING (NO. 7) PLC
     The undersigned, a duly authorized representative of Barclay Bank PLC (the “Bank”), asServicer, pursuant to the Beneficiaries Servicing Agreement, dated as of November 23, 1999 ( the“Agreement”), among the Bank, as Servicer and Barclaycard Funding PLC, as Investor Beneficiary,does hereby certify that:
     1. The Bank is, as of the date hereof, the Servicer under the Agreement.Capitalized terms used in this Certificate have their respective meanings asset forth in the Agreement.
     2. The undersigned is duly authorized pursuant to the Agreement to execute and deliver this Certificate.
     3. A review of the activities of the Servicer during the calendar year ended December 31, 2004 was conducted under my supervision.
     4. Based on such review, the Servicer has, to the best of my knowledge,performed in all material respects its obligations under the Agreementthroughout such calendar year and no material default in the performance ofsuch obligations has occurred or is continuing except as set forth in theParagraph 5 below.
     5. The following is a description of each material default in the performanceof the Servicer’s obligations under the provisions of the Agreement known tothe undersigned to have been made by the Servicer during the calendar yearended December 31, 2004, which sets forth in detail (i) the nature of each suchdefault, (ii) the action taken by the Servicer, if any, to remedy each suchdefault and (iii) the current status of each such default:
     None.
     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Annual Servicer’s Certificate this30th day of June, 2005.         Barclays Bank PLC  as Servicer  By: /s/ Paul Gerard Turner    Name: Paul Gerard Turner    Title: Finance Director      Barclaycard UK Consumer Finance      Division
# C_2011116EN.01000201.xml

| 14.4.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 116/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 116/2

---

Notice for the attention of the persons and entities to which measures provided for in Council Decision 2011/137/CFSP and in Council Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya apply

2011/C 116/02

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

The following information is brought to the attention of the persons and entities that appear in Annexes II and IV to Council Implementing Decision 2011/236/CFSP (1), implementing Council Decision 2011/137/CFSP, and in Annex II to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 360/2011 (2), implementing Council Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya.

1

2

The Council of the European Union has decided that the persons and entities that appear in the above-mentioned Annexes should be included in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2011/137/CFSP and in Council Regulation (EU) No 204/2011.

The attention of the persons and entities concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated on the websites in Annex IV to Regulation (EU) No 204/2011, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 7 of the Regulation).

The persons and entities concerned may submit a request to the Council, together with supporting documentation, that the decision to include them on the abovementioned list should be reconsidered, to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

The attention of the persons and entities concerned is also drawn to the possibility of challenging the Council's decision before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 275, second paragraph, and Article 263, fourth and sixth paragraphs, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ L 100, 14.4.2011, p. 58.

1

(2)  OJ L 100, 14.4.2011, p. 12.

2

---
**Exhibit 32.2**

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 on Form 10-Q of Trevenex Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Raymond Kuh, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

(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:  January 25, 2009 | By: /s/ Raymond Kuh                                                                |
|                          |        Raymond Kuh                                   |
|                          |        Chief Financial Officer, Secretary, Treasurer |
|                          |        (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)  |

This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### STATE ex rel. UTILITIES COMMISSION v. PUBLIC STAFF

No. 529PA82.

Case below: 58 N.C. App. 480.

Petition by Public Staff for writ of certiorari and petition by CP&L for writ of certiorari allowed 21 September 1982.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

MANOUCHE SEJOUR et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. CASE NO.: 1:10cv96-SPM/GRJ

STEVEN DAVIS, et al.,

Defendants.

__________________________________/

ORDER

This cause comes before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Second Unopposed

Motion to Extend Discovery Time to Take Cabioch Bontemps’ Deposition and

Third Unopposed Motion to Extend Deadline for Filing Dispositive Motions (doc.

115). Good cause having been found, it is 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: 

1. The motion (doc. 115) is granted.

2. The discovery period is extended to allow Plaintiffs to re-take the

deposition of Cabioch Bontemps on March 12, 2012.

3. The deadline for filing dispositive motions is April 13, 2012.

DONE AND ORDERED this 2nd day of March, 2012.

S/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Senior United States District Judge

Case 1:10-cv-00096-SPM-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/02/12 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 07-1416

BERNARD BRIGHT, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

 v. 

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; QUINCY’S FAMILY 

STEAKHOUSE; PALMER WORK RELEASE CENTER, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief 

District Judge. (3:07-cv-00214-JFA) 

Submitted: August 20, 2009 Decided: August 24, 2009 

Before WILKINSON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, 

Senior Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Bernard Bright, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Bernard Bright appeals the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying 

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint and denying his 

request for a refund of the filing fee. We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for 

the reasons stated by the district court. See Bright v. S.C. 

Dep’t of Corr., No. 3:07-cv-00214-JFA (D.S.C. Apr. 20, 2007). 

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
#### MILLER MACHINE CO. v. MILLER

No. 492P82.

Case below: 58 N.C. App. 300.

Petition by plaintiffs for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 21 September 1982.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1804

KASSAHUN WAGAW WORKNEH, Petitioner, versus JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General; U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A77-252-385) Submitted: May 9, 2003 Decided: May 19, 2003 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mikre Michael Ayele, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Senior Litigation Counsel, Nelda C. Reyna, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Kassahun Wagaw Workneh, native and citizen of Ethiopia, seeks review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming without opinion the decision of the immigration judge (IJ) denying Workneh’s application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have reviewed the administrative record and the IJ’s decision. We find that the IJ’s ruling that Workneh failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution, as necessary to qualify for asylum relief, is not manifestly contrary to the law or an abuse of discretion. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D); see 8 C.F.R. 208.13(b) (2003) (eligibility for asylum). The standard for receiving withholding of removal is “more stringent than that for asylum eligibility.” Chen v. INS , 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999). An applicant for withholding mustdemonstrate a clear probability of persecution. INS v. CardozaFonseca , 480 U.S. 421, 430-31 (1987). As Workneh has failed to establish his eligibility for asylum, he cannot satisfy the higher standard for withholding of removal. We accordingly deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED