alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32



CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section
1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)



Pursuant to section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Excelsior Venture Partners III, LLC (the Company), does hereby certify, to such
officers knowledge, that:



The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended January 31, 2005 (the Form 10-Q) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                     |  |  |  |                               
|-------------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------------
|                     |  | 
|Date: March 16, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/ Douglas A. Lindgren       
|                     |  |  |  | Name: Douglas A. Lindgren     
|                     |  |  |  | Title: Chief Executive Officer
|                     |  | 
|Date: March 16, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/ Robert F. Aufenanger      
|                     |  |  |  | Name: Robert F. Aufenanger    
|                     |  |  |  | Title: Treasurer              



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.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 304

 263

 248

 271

 266

 301

 333

 352

 385

 392

 398

 393

 396

 409

 432

 476

 488

 520

 516

 502

 471

 477

 491

 466

 532

 466

 447

 458

 446

 442

 442

 230

 222

 224

 222

 226

 254

 267

 252

 246

 244

 246

 248

 251

 248

 253

 256

 267

 282

 320

 342

 351

 304

 290

 299

 205

 211

 216

 220

 223

 231

 236

 257

 238

 234

 243

 246

 272

 304

 310

 314

 310

 305

 299

 307

 319

 342

 380

 376

 389

 419

 425

 420

 402

 355

 363

 366

 292

 300

 309

 310

 311

 327

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JULY 2006 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: August 3, 2006

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 175

 163

 161

 166

 168

 184

 204

 208

 210

 208

 204

 201

 206

 213

 227

 251

 248

 256

 275

 279

 276

 264

 235

 240

 242

 196

 201

 207

 208

 208

 218

TOTAL 10,044

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT CHECK 21
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

BRENDA C. ARMSTEAD,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

ALVIN BRAGG, MICHAEL COHEN, MIKE PENSE, 

STEPHANIE CLIFFORDS,

Defendants-Appellees

______________________

2024-1836

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of New York in No. 1:23-cv-02976-LTS, 

Judge Laura Taylor Swain.

______________________

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

No party having filed a response to the court’s June 13, 

2024 show cause order, we now dismiss. 

Brenda C. Armstead sued a district attorney and three

private individuals, alleging they engaged in wrongful conduct in connection with state court proceedings against former President Trump. ECF No. 1-2 at 10. On April 11, 

2023, the district court dismissed the action, and Ms. Armstead filed her notice of appeal on May 3, 2024. 

Case: 24-1836 Document: 4 Page: 1 Filed: 09/30/2024
2 ARMSTEAD v. BRAGG

“[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case 

is a jurisdictional requirement,” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 

205, 214 (2007). Here, Ms. Armstead’s notice of appeal, 

filed more than a year after the district court’s April 11, 

2023 judgment, is clearly untimely. For at least this reason, we and any other court of appeals lack jurisdiction.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The appeal is dismissed.

(2) Each party shall bear its own costs.

September 30, 2024

 Date

FOR THE COURT

 

Case: 24-1836 Document: 4 Page: 2 Filed: 09/30/2024
First Department,

May, 1943.

(May 3, 1943.)

#### Bartholomew J. Antone et al., Copartners under the Name of Antone Brothers & Company, Respondents, v. Milton Kahn et al., Copartners under the Name of Novelart Manufacturing Company, Appellants.

No opinion. Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, TJntermyer, Dore and Callahan, JJ.
Exhibit 99.1





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Ronald
Croen, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Nuance Communications, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2002 fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of Nuance Communications, Inc.





By:

/s/    RONALD
CROENRonald Croen, Chief Executive Officer








I, Karen Blasing, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Nuance Communications, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2002 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Nuance
Communications, Inc.





By:

/s/    KAREN
BLASINGKaren Blasing, Chief Financial Officer
### §3442. Jurors, examination, peremptory challenges; alternates—(Rule)

#### See Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure

Examination and peremptory challenges of trial jurors; alternate jurors, Rule 24.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 832.)
### §675. Norbeck Wildlife Preserve; establishment

There is designated as the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve such areas, not exceeding forty-six thousand acres, of the Harney National Forest, and adjoining or in the vicinity of the Custer State Park, in the State of South Dakota, as should, in the opinion of the President of the United States, be set aside for the protection of game animals and birds, and be recognized as a breeding place therefor.

(June 5, 1920, ch. 247, §1, 41 Stat. 986; June 7, 1924, ch. 324, 43 Stat. 632; Oct. 6, 1949, ch. 620, §1, 63 Stat. 708.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

As enacted by act June 5, 1920, this section authorized the President to designate areas not exceeding 30,000 acres, but by amendment by act June 7, 1924, the President was authorized, upon recommendation of the Secretary of Agriculture, to enlarge the area by proclamation to embrace a total of not to exceed 46,000 acres and the provisions of sections 676 to 678 of this title, apply with equal force to the additional area.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Change of Name

"Custer State Park Game Sanctuary" changed to "Norbeck Wildlife Preserve" by act Oct. 6, 1949.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Change of Name

Harney National Forest abolished and its lands transferred to and consolidated with those of Black Hills National Forest by Public Land Order No. 1016 of Oct. 4, 1954, 19 F.R. 6500.

#### Presidential Designation

Areas comprising the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve, formerly known as the Custer State Park Game Sanctuary, were designated by Proclamations of Oct. 9, 1920 (41 Stat. 1805), Jan. 8, 1925 (43 Stat. 1981), and Jan. 14, 1929 (45 Stat. 2985).
§ 35.6 Final denial of claim. ( a ) Final denial of an administrative claim shall be in writing and sent to the claimant, his attorney, or legal representative by certified or registered mail. The notification of final denial may include a statement of the reasons for the denial and shall include a statement that, if the claimant is dissatisfied with the Department's action, he may file suit in an appropriate U.S. District Court not later than 6 months after the date of mailing of the notification.
( b ) Prior to the commencement of suit and prior to the expiration of the 6-month period after the date of mailing, by certified or registered mail of notice of final denial of the claim as provided in 28 U.S.C. 2401(b), a claimant, his duly authorized agent, or legal representative, may file a written request with the Department for reconsideration of a final denial of a claim under paragraph (a) of this section. Upon the timely filing of a request for reconsideration the Department shall have 6 months from the date of filing in which to make a final disposition of the claim and the claimant's option under 28 U.S.C. 2675(a) to bring suit shall not accrue until 6 months after the filing of a request for reconsideration. Final Department action on a request for reconsideration shall be effected in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4761 

To ensure U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers, agents, and other 

personnel have adequate synthetic opioid detection equipment, that the 

Department of Homeland Security has a process to update synthetic 

opioid detection capability, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 18, 2019 

Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana (for himself, Ms. CLARKE of New York, Mr. ROGERS of Alabama, Mr. KATKO, Mr. ROSE of New York, Mr. KING of New 

York, Mr. JOYCE of Pennsylvania, and Mr. MCCAUL) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security, 

and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to 

be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 

concerned 

A BILL 

To ensure U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers, 

agents, and other personnel have adequate synthetic 

opioid detection equipment, that the Department of 

Homeland Security has a process to update synthetic 

opioid detection capability, and for other purposes. 

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


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4761 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘DHS Opioid Detection 

3 Resilience Act of 2019’’. 

4 SEC. 2. STRATEGY TO ENSURE DETECTION OF ALL OPIOID 

5 PURITY LEVELS AT PORTS OF ENTRY. 

6 Not later than 180 days after the date of the enact7 ment of this section, the Commissioner of U.S. Customs 

8 and Border Protection (CBP) shall— 

9 (1) implement a strategy to ensure deployed 

10 chemical screening devices are able to identify in an 

11 operational environment narcotics at purity levels 

12 less than or equal to 10 percent, or provide ports of 

13 entry with an alternate method for identifying nar14 cotics at lower purity levels; and 

15 (2) require testing of any new chemical screen16 ing devices to understand the abilities and limita17 tions of such devices relating to identifying narcotics 

18 at various purity levels before CBP commits to the 

19 acquisition of such devices. 

20 SEC. 3. PLAN TO ENSURE OPIOID DETECTION EQUIPMENT 

21 RESILIENCY. 

22 Not later than 180 days after the date of the enact23 ment of this section, the Secretary of Homeland Security 

24 shall implement a plan for the long-term development of 

25 a centralized spectral database for chemical screening de26 vices. Such plan shall address the following: 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4761 IH

1 (1) How newly identified spectra will be col2 lected, stored, and distributed to such devices in 

3 their operational environment, including at ports of 

4 entry. 

5 (2) Identification of parties responsible for up6 dates and maintenance of such database. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-1064

MEIQIONG XU, 

 Petitioner, 

 v. 

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., 

 Respondent. 

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals.

Submitted: February 27, 2009 Decided: March 23, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. 

Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per 

curiam opinion. 

Jason A. Nielson, LAW OFFICES OF JOE ZHENGHONG ZHOU AND 

ASSOCIATES, PLLC, Flushing, New York, for Petitioner. Gregory G. 

Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, Leslie M. McKay, Assistant 

Director, Kristin K. Edison, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 Meiqiong Xu, a native and citizen of China, petitions 

for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals 

(Board) adopting and affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) 

decision denying her applications for relief from removal. Xu 

first challenges the Board’s finding that she waived appeal of 

the IJ’s finding that she filed an untimely asylum application 

and no exceptions applied. We find it unnecessary to address 

this claim because the Board found alternatively that Xu failed 

to show changed or extraordinary circumstances justifying the 

untimely filing of her asylum application, and we lack 

jurisdiction to review this determination. See 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1158(a)(3) (2006); Niang v. Gonzales, 492 F.3d 505, 510 n.5 

(4th Cir. 2007); Almuhtaseb v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 743, 747-48 

(6th Cir. 2006) (collecting cases). Given that the Board 

reviewed the finding at issue, we reject Xu’s assertion that she 

was denied due process when the Board found that she waived 

appeal. 

 Next, Xu challenges the finding below that she failed 

to qualify for withholding of removal. “To qualify for 

withholding of removal, a petitioner must show that he faces a 

clear probability of persecution because of his race, religion, 

nationality, membership in a particular social group, or 

political opinion.” Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 324 n.13 (4th 

2 
3 

Cir. 2002) (citing INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 430 (1984)). 

Having conducted our review, we conclude that substantial 

evidence supports the finding that Xu did not establish 

eligibility for withholding of removal. We likewise uphold the 

finding below that Xu failed to demonstrate that it is more 

likely than not that she would be tortured if removed to China. 

8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2008). Finally, we decline to 

consider evidence in the administrative record that was not the 

basis for the Board’s decision currently before us, see 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1252(b)(4)(A) (2006), and deny Xu’s motion for abeyance 

pending a ruling on her motion to reopen as moot. 

 We thus dismiss in part and deny in part the petition 

for review. 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. 

PETITION DISMISSED IN PART

AND DENIED IN PART
### §27. Mortgage lending business defined

In this title, the term "mortgage lending business" means an organization which finances or refinances any debt secured by an interest in real estate, including private mortgage companies and any subsidiaries of such organizations, and whose activities affect interstate or foreign commerce.

(Added Pub. L. 111–21, §2(b)(1), May 20, 2009, 123 Stat. 1617.)
§ 668.405 Process for obtaining data and calculating D/E rates and earnings premium measure. ( a ) *Administrative data.* In calculating the D/E rates and earnings premium measure for a program, the Secretary uses student enrollment, disbursement, and program data, or other data the institution is required to report to the Secretary to support its administration of, or participation in, the title IV, HEA programs. In accordance with procedures established by the Secretary, the institution must update or otherwise correct any reported data no later than 60 days after the end of an award year.
( b ) *Process overview.* The Secretary uses the administrative data to— ( 1 ) Compile a list of students who completed each program during the cohort period. The Secretary— ( i ) Removes from those lists students who are excluded under § 668.403(e) or § 668.404(c);
( ii ) Provides the list to institutions; and
( iii ) Allows the institution to correct the information reported by the institution on which the list was based, no later than 60 days after the date the Secretary provides the list to the institution;
( 2 ) Obtain from a Federal agency with earnings data the median annual earnings of the students on each list, as provided in paragraph (c) of this section; and
( 3 ) Calculate the D/E rates and the earnings premium measure and provide them to the institution.
( c ) *Obtaining earnings data.* For each list submitted to the Federal agency with earnings data, the agency returns to the Secretary— ( 1 ) The median annual earnings of the students on the list whom the Federal agency with earnings data has matched to earnings data, in aggregate and not in individual form; and
( 2 ) The number, but not the identities, of students on the list that the Federal agency with earnings data could not match.
( d ) *Calculating D/E rates and earnings premium measure.* ( 1 ) If the Federal agency with earnings data includes reports from records of earnings on at least 30 students, the Secretary uses the median annual earnings provided by the Federal agency with earnings data to calculate the D/E rates and earnings premium measure for each program.
( 2 ) If the Federal agency with earnings data reports that it was unable to match one or more of the students on the final list, the Secretary does not include in the calculation of the median loan debt for D/E rates the same number of students with the highest loan debts as the number of students whose earnings the Federal agency with earnings data did not match. For example, if the Federal agency with earnings data is unable to match three students out of 100 students, the Secretary orders by amount the debts of the 100 listed students and excludes from the D/E rates calculation the three largest loan debts.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JUAN MANUEL VALADEZ, III,

Appellant,

v.

D.S. and A.A.,

Appellees. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 9

- 00222

- CV

Appeal from the

65th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2019DCM5325 )

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the Appellant’s motion to withdraw appeal and

concludes the motion should be granted and the appeal should be dismissed, in accordance with

the opinion of this Cour t. We therefore dismiss the appeal. Costs are taxed against the Appellant.

See T EX .R.A PP .P. 42.1(d). This decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before Rodriguez, J., Palafox, J., and Barajas, Senior Judge

Barajas, Senior Judge (Sitting by Assignment)
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 688

 646

 639

 635

 626

 632

 607

 603

 605

 605

 600

 616

 587

 613

 597

 604

 611

 615

 611

 609

 603

 604

 612

 624

 628

 620

 633

 662

 674

 716

 694

 528

 519

 547

 522

 513

 505

 526

 543

 559

 561

 561

 547

 559

 568

 560

 535

 555

 573

 560

 586

 579

 570

 566

 587

 595

 560

 608

 608

 611

 591

 632

 636

 599

 607

 593

 581

 582

 576

 574

 582

 580

 577

 581

 573

 586

 581

 580

 589

 597

 594

 596

 593

 586

 600

 611

 611

 606

 622

 629

 627

 643

 653

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

OCTOBER 2001 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: November 5, 2001

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 409

 386

 391

 382

 375

 376

 372

 371

 376

 374

 373

 375

 370

 378

 375

 374

 380

 385

 383

 384

 382

 378

 387

 394

 394

 391

 400

 405

 403

 413

 420

TOTAL 18,545

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT CHECK 21
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5070 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5070

   To provide access to Federal public benefits for individuals with 
             criminal convictions, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 13, 2019

  Ms. Ocasio-Cortez (for herself, Ms. Meng, Mr. Clay, Ms. Tlaib, Mr. 
Garcia of Illinois, and Ms. Lee of California) introduced the following 
   bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To provide access to Federal public benefits for individuals with 
             criminal convictions, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``A Just Society: The Mercy In Re-
entry Act''.

SEC. 2. FEDERAL PUBLIC BENEFIT ACCESSIBILITY FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH 
              CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an 
individual may not be denied any Federal public benefit solely on the 
basis that the individual was convicted of a criminal offense (whether 
under Federal, State, tribal, or foreign law).
    (b) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term ``Federal 
public benefit'' means--
            (1) any grant, contract, loan, professional license, or 
        commercial license provided by an agency of the United States 
        or by appropriated funds of the United States; and
            (2) any retirement, welfare, health, disability, public or 
        assisted housing, postsecondary education, food assistance, 
        unemployment benefit, or any other similar benefit for which 
        payments or assistance are provided to an individual, 
        household, or family eligibility unit by an agency of the 
        United States or by appropriated funds of the United States.
                                 <all>
```