alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.1**
 
 **CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT RULES**
 **13A-14 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF**
 **THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 
 I, Crawford Shaw, the Chief Executive Officer (the principal executive officer) of Industrial Enterprises of America, Inc., certify that:
 
 1.
I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Industrial Enterprises of America, Inc.; 
 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(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-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 our 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. 
 5.
The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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 function): 
 a.
All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control 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. 
 6.
The registrants other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses. 
 
 
 
 Dated:  , 2004
 
 /s/ Crawford Shaw
 Crawford Shaw, Chief Executive Officer,
 Chairman of the Board and President
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 52 (Friday, March 17, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14451-14452]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6652]



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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-30,224, TA-W-30,370]


Apollo Dye, Paterson, NJ and Leader Dye & Finishing, Paterson, 
NJ; Notice of Revised Determination on Reopening

    On March 7, 1995, the Department, on its own motion, reopened its 
investigation for the former workers of the subject firms.
    The initial investigation resulted in negative determinations on 
November 28, 1994 for workers at both firms because the ``contributed 
importantly'' test of the Group Eligibility Requirements of the Trade 
Act was not [[Page 14452]] met. The denial notices were published in 
the Federal Register on December 16, 1994 (59 FR 65076).
    The findings show that Apollo Dye is the parent company of Leader 
Dye & Finishing. Both firms are engaged in producing printed fabric and 
had integrated production.
    A late response to the Department's customer survey shows that a 
major account reduced its business with Apollo Dye because of increased 
imports of printed dyed fabric.
    Other findings show that U.S. imports increased absolutely and 
relative to domestic shipments in 1993 compared to 1992 and in the 
first six months of 1994 compared to the same period in 1993. The ratio 
of imports to U.S. production reached 143 percent in 1994.
    Other findings show that the both plants closed in July 1994 when 
all production ceased and all workers were laid off.

Conclusion

    After careful consideration of the new facts obtained on reopening, 
it is concluded that increased imports of articles like or directly 
competitive with the printed dyed fabric produced by the subject firms 
contributed importantly to the decline in production and to the total 
or partial separation of workers at the subject firms. In accordance 
with the provisions of the Trade Act of 1974, I make the following 
revised determination:

    All former workers of Apollo Dye, Paterson, New Jersey and its 
subsidiary, Leader Dye & Finishing, Paterson, New Jersey who became 
totally or partially separated from employment on or after August 1, 
1993 are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 
223 of the Trade Act of 1974.

    Signed at Washington, D.C., this 8th day of March 1995.
Victor J. Trunzo,
Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of Trade 
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 95-6652 Filed 3-16-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DANIEL LIONG,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 13-71066

Agency No. A096-362-473

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 18, 2014** 

Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Daniel Liong, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for withholding of

removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

FILED

DEC 5 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

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

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the

agency’s factual findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.

2009). We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review, and we remand.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because Liong

failed to establish it is more likely than not that he will be tortured by or with the

acquiescence of government officials if returned to Indonesia. See id. at 1068. We

reject Liong’s contention that the BIA failed to properly evaluate the evidence. 

Thus, we deny the petition as to Liong’s CAT claim.

With respect to Liong’s withholding of removal claim, however, substantial

evidence does not support the BIA’s finding that the incidents of mistreatment

Liong personally experienced did not rise to the level of persecution. See Chand v.

INS, 222 F.3d 1066, 1073-75 (9th Cir. 2000) (record compelled finding of

persecution where petitioner suffered multiple incidents of physical harm and other

kinds of hardship at various times over a period of years). Thus, we grant the

petition for review and hold that Liong suffered harm rising to the level of

persecution. We remand to the BIA to address any other issues regarding Liong’s

withholding of removal claim and, if necessary, to remand to the IJ for further

proceedings. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam); Vitug v.

Holder, 723 F.3d 1056, 1063 (9th Cir. 2013) (BIA may not engage in its own

2 13-71066
factfinding). We note that, contrary to the BIA’s assertion, Liong’s case is not

governed by the REAL ID Act.

In light of our conclusions, we do not reach Liong’s other arguments

regarding his withholding of removal claim.

The government shall bear the costs for this petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;

REMANDED.

3 13-71066
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 96-7309 DON RICO MADDOX, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert J. Staker, Senior District Judge. (CR-94-21, CA-95-1137-3) Submitted: March 31, 1997 Decided: April 22, 1997 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________ Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Don Rico Maddox, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Thomas Farrell, Assistant United States Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________OPINION PER CURIAM: Don Maddox seeks to appeal the district court's order and order on reconsideration denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(West 1994 & Supp. 1997). Maddox's case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Maddox that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation couldwaive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Maddox failed to object to the magistrate judge's recommendation.The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge's recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Maddox has waived appellate review of the district court'sunderlying order denying his § 2255 motion by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Moreover, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Maddox's motion for reconsideration, see Temkin v. Frederick County Comm'rs , 945 F.2d 716, 724 (4th Cir. 1991), b ecause the motion did not even address Maddox's failure to timely raise objections, which was the basis for the district court's denial of relief. We accordingly 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 51 (Thursday, March 16, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 14298]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6496]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
[MT-930-1430-01; MTM 82124]

Conveyance of Public Lands, Beaverhead, Madison, and Yellowstone 
Counties; MT

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This order informs the public and interested state and local 
governmental officials of the conveyance of 814.39 acres of public 
lands out of Federal ownership.
    The land acquired in the exchange provides recreation access to the 
Madison River. The public is well served through completion of this 
land exchange.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 8, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sandra Ward, BLM Montana State Office, 
P.O. Box 36800, Billings, Montana 59107, 406-255-2949.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1. Notice is hereby given that in an 
exchange of land made pursuant to Section 206 of the Federal Land 
Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1716, the following 
described lands were transferred from Federal to private ownership:

Gabel Construction Inc.

Principal Meridian, Montana

T. N., R. 27 E.,
    Sec. 35, lots 21 and 22.

Elmer F. Link

Principal Meridian, Montana

T. 2 N., R. 27 E.,
    Sec. 36, lot 5. 2.

Otto R. Miller, Jr. and Charlene J. Miller

Principal Meridian, Montana

T. 7 S., R. 9 W.,
    Sec. 11, S\1/2\NE\1/4\NW\1/4\SE, SE\1/4\NW\1/4\SE\1/4\, W\1/
2\NW\1/4\SE\1/4\, NE\1/4\SE\1/4\, S\1/2\SE\1/4\, SE\1/4\SW\1/4\;
    Sec. 13, NW\1/4\SW\1/4\;
    Sec. 14, lots 1, 2, 3, and 5.

Beaverhead Madison Broadcasting Inc.

Principal Meridian, Montana

T. 7 S., R. 9 W.,
    Sec. 11, N\1/2\NE\1/4\NW\1/4\SE\1/4\.

Turner Enterprises, Inc.

Principal Meridian, Montana

T. 2 S., R. 1 E.,
    Sec. 26, NW\1/4\NE\1/4\.

Valley Garden Ranch, Inc.

Principal Meridian, Montana

T. 5 S., R. 1 W.,
    Sec. 18, lots 1 and 2;
    Sec. 20, N\1/2\NW\1/4\.

Rice Ranches, A Montana Corporation

Principal Meridian, Montana

T. 2 S., R. 1 E.,
    Sec. 31, lots 1 and 2, and E\1/2\NW\1/4\.
T. 2 S., R. 2 E.,
    Sec. 33, lot 2.

Moorse Creek Grazing Association

Principal Meridian, Montana

T. 6 S., R. 2 W.,
    Sec. 2, SW\1/4\NE\1/4\.

    The areas described aggregate 814.39 acres in Beaverhead, 
Madison, and Yellowstone Counties.

    2. In the exchange, the following described land has been 
reconveyed to the United States:

Principal Meridian, Montana

T. 3 S., R. 1 E.,
    Sec. 10, lots 2 and 4, excluding therefrom the area contained 
within the state highway right-of-way lines, more particularly 
described in Bargain and Sale Deed recorded in Book 162, Page 148, 
Records of Madison County, Montana.

    The area described contains 33.88 acres in Madison County.

    Dated: March 6, 1995.
John E. Moorhouse,
Acting Deputy State Director, Division of Lands and Renewable 
Resources.
[FR Doc. 95-6496 Filed 3-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-DN-P
```
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

September 26, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-11697

Bear Down Brands LLC:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request did not contain a sufficient product identification or was 

determined to be non-administrable.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-21-00062-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 342nd District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 342-322505-20

Before Womack, Wallach, and Walker, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

SKY LEASING & RENTAL, LLC D/B/A NAZCARZ, AND GEORGES FAOUD 

BECHARA, Appellants

V.

AUTOMOTIVE FINANCE CORPORATION, Appellee
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

We have considered Appellants’ “Motion to Dismiss Appeal.” We grant the 

motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

Appellants must pay all costs of this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d), 43.4.

Per Curiam

Delivered: April 1, 2021
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 33 (Friday, February 19, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 8490]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-03317]



[[Page 8490]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER16-895-000]


RDAF Energy Solutions; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
RDAF Energy Solutions's application for market-based rate authority, 
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes 
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future 
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, 
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone 
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is March 1, 2016.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the 
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an 
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive 
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). 
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#377172657478595b5e595264424747584543775152455419505841"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b6f0f3e4f5f9d8dadfd8d3e5c3c6c6d9c4c2f6d0d3c4d598d1d9c0">[email protected]</span></a>. or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: February 10, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-03317 Filed 2-18-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 42 (Friday, March 3, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 11915]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5219]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 672

[Docket No. 950206041-5041-01; I.D. 022795A]


Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska; Pollock in the Eastern Gulf

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Closure.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for pollock in Eastern 
Regulatory Area in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary 
to prevent exceeding the total allowable catch for pollock in this 
area.

EFFECTIVE DATE: 12 noon, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), February 27, 1995, 
until 12 noon A.l.t., December 31, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael L. Sloan, 907-586-7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive 
economic zone is managed by the NMFS according to the Fishery 
Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by 
the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the 
Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Fishing by U.S. 
vessels is governed by regulations implementing the FMP at 50 CFR parts 
620 and 672.
    The initial specification for pollock TAC in the Eastern Regulatory 
Area in the GOA was established by final initial specifications (60 FR 
8740, February 14, 1995) as 3,360 metric tons (mt), determined in 
accordance with Sec. 672.20(c)(1)(ii)(A).
    The Director of the Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Director), has 
determined, in accordance with Sec. 672.20(c)(2)(ii), that the 1995 
final interim specification of pollock in the Eastern Regulatory Area 
in the GOA soon will be reached. The Regional Director established a 
directed fishing allowance of 3,000 mt, and has set aside the remaining 
360 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. 
The Regional Director has determined that the directed fishing 
allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed 
fishing for pollock in the Eastern Regulatory Area in the GOA.
    Directed fishing standards for applicable gear types may be found 
in the regulations at Sec. 672.20(g).

Classification

    This action is taken under 50 CFR 672.20 and is exempt from review 
under E.O. 12866.

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: February 27, 1995.
David S. Crestin,
Acting Director, Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management, 
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 95-5219 Filed 2-27-95; 4:41 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F