alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sovereign Exploration Associates
International, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended
March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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.



| |  | Sovereign
    Exploration Associates International, Inc..
    BY: /s/ Robert D. Baca
    Robert D. Baca, Chief Executive Officer
    May 22, 2006
| |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 241 (Thursday, December 16, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 75314]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27481]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisition of Shares of Bank or 
Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec. [thinsp]225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth 
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than December 30, 2004.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Sue Costello, Vice President) 
1000 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30303:
    1. Gerald L. Pennington Trust, Gerald Lee Pennington as trustee, 
Margaret A. Pennington Trust, and Margaret Angela Pennington as 
trustee, all of Osprey, Florida; to acquire additional voting shares of 
LandMark Financial Holding Company, and thereby indirectly acquire 
voting shares of LandMark Bank of Florida, both of Sarasota, Florida.
    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, December 10, 
2004.

Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 04-27481 Filed 12-15-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
### §1873a. Repealed. Pub. L. 99–159, title I, §109(f), Nov. 22, 1985, 99 Stat. 890

Section, Pub. L. 95–99, §10, Aug. 15, 1977, 91 Stat. 834; amended Pub. L. 96–470, title I, §119, Oct. 19, 1980, 94 Stat. 2241, related to prohibition respecting financial or other interest of employees processing applications or proposals for Foundation grants or contracts.
§ 401.6 Exemption for branches and agencies of foreign banks that deal solely with non-United States citizens resident offshore. ( a ) Subject to the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section, a branch or agency of a foreign bank shall be exempt from the provisions of section 15C (a), (b), and (d) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78o-5 (a), (b), (d)) and the regulations of this subchapter, if all the customers with or on behalf of whom it engages in government securities transactions are limited to foreign governments, agencies of foreign governments and other persons and entities who are not citizens of the United States and who reside or, in the case of a corporation, partnership or other entity, have their principal place of business, outside of the United States.
( b ) A branch or agency that relies on the exemption contained in paragraph (a) of this section is required to comply with the regulations of part 450 of this chapter concerning custodial holdings of government securities.
#### Edward S. Savage, Appellant, v. Utica Gas and Electric Company, Respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs. All concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4222 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4222

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 6, 2012

    Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To provide for the conveyance of certain land inholdings owned by the 
 United States to the Tucson Unified School District and to the Pascua 
            Yaqui Tribe of Arizona, 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 ``Pascua Yaqui Tribe Trust Land Act''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

    For the purposes of this Act, the following definitions apply:
            (1) District.--The term ``District'' means the Tucson 
        Unified School District, a school district recognized as such 
        under the laws of the State of Arizona.
            (2) Map.--The term ``map'' means the map titled ``Pascua 
        Yaqui Tribe Trust Land Act'' and dated April 23, 2012.
            (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
        of the Interior.
            (4) Tribe.--The term ``Tribe'' means the Pascua Yaqui Tribe 
        of Arizona, a federally recognized Indian tribe.

SEC. 3. LANDS TO BE HELD IN TRUST.

    (a) Parcel A.--Subject to valid existing rights, all right, title, 
and interest of the United States in and to the Federal lands of 
approximately 10 acres shown on the map as Parcel A are declared held 
in trust by the United States for the benefit of the Tribe.
    (b) Parcel B.--Immediately upon the Secretary's receipt from the 
District of the abandonment of its possessory interest of the lands of 
approximately 10 acres shown on the map as Parcel B, subject to valid 
existing rights, all right, title, and interest of the United States in 
and to the Federal lands shown on the map as Parcel B are declared held 
in trust by the United States for the benefit of the Tribe.

SEC. 4. GAMING PROHIBITION.

    The Tribe may not conduct gaming activities on the lands held in 
trust under this Act, as a matter of claimed inherent authority or 
under the authority of any Federal law, including the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) or under any regulations 
thereunder promulgated by the Secretary or the National Indian Gaming 
Commission.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 5, 2012.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### § 211.12 Waiver and amendment authority.

The Assistant Administrator for Food and Humanitarian Assistance, A.I.D., may waive, withdraw, or amend, at any time, any or all of the provisions of this Regulation 11 if such provision is not statutory and it is determined to be in the best interest of the U.S. Government to do so. Any cooperating sponsor which has failed to comply with the provisions of this Regulation or any instructions or procedures issued in connection herewith, or any agreements entered into pursuant hereto may at the discretion of A.I.D. be suspended or disqualified from further participation in any distribution program. Reinstatement may be made at the option of A.I.D. Disqualification shall not prevent A.I.D. from taking other action through other available means when considered necessary.
Medicine

Medicine Bow
| National
Bow | 4 Forest |
National
Forest 7
R7ew {76 74
12
|
Public lands that may have 0 5 10 20 30 40 50
= potential for disposal or transfer Map 2-29
Kilometers 4
0.25 5 10 15 20 25 rolentes oe .
Miles y y

Alternatives 2 & 4

NO WARRANTY IS MADE BY THE BLM FOR USE OF THE DATA FOR PURPOSES NOT INTENDED BY BLM
### M A N D A T E

THE STATE OF TEXAS

TO THE 83RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF VAL VERDE COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on April 22, 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise

or reverse your judgment between

City of Del Rio, Appellant

V.

Daniel Jalomos, Appellee

No. 04

- 14

- 00381

- CV and Tr. Ct. No. 31037

was determined, and therein our said Court of Appeals made its order in these words:



## In accordance with this court’s memorandum opinion of this date, the

order granting the plea to the jurisdiction and dismissing the suit filed by the

City of Del Rio is AFFIRMED. It is ORDERED that Appellee Daniel Jalomos

recover his costs of appeal from Appellant City of Del Rio.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Fourth

District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS the Hon. Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of

Texas, with the seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on July 1, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853BILL OF COSTS



### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, FOURTH DISTRICT, AT SAN ANTONIO

No. 04

- 14

- 00381

- CV

City of Del Rio

v.

Daniel Jalomos

(NO. 31037 IN 83RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF VAL VERDE COUNTY)

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID BY

MOTION FEE

CLERK'S RECORD

REPORTER'S RECORD

FILING

STATEWIDE EFILING FEE

INDIGENT

SUPREME COURT CHAPTER 51

FEE $10.00

$62.00

$873.00

$100.00

$20.00

$25.00

$50.00 E

- PAID

PAID

PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID MANUEL QUINTO

- POZOS

CITY OF DEL RIO

CITY OF DEL RIO

SUZANNE WEST

SUZANNE WEST

SUZANNE WEST

SUZANNE WEST

Balance of costs owing to the Fourth Court of Appeals, San Antonio, Texas: 0.00

**Court costs in**  **this cause shall**  **be paid as**  **per the**  **Judgment issued by**  **this Court.** 

I, KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK OF THE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF

TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the cost bill of

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, showing the charges and

payments, in the above numbered and styled cause, as the same appears of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand and the Seal of the COURT OF APPEALS for

the Fourth District of Texas, this July 1, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
§ 223.7 Rights of parties at hearing. A hearing shall include, at a minimum, the following rights for both parties: ( a ) To represent oneself or to be represented by counsel;
( b ) To examine or cross-examine witnesses;
( c ) To submit evidence (including the use of interrogatories);
( d ) To present oral arguments; and
( e ) To receive a transcript of recording of the proceedings on request.
In any hearing, the agency has the burden of proof and must establish substantial evidence of a violation.
#### Benjamin Kemenitsky v. Thos F. Corcoran.

Application granted. Order signed. Present—Clarke, P. J., Laughlin, Dowling, Smith and Davis, J J.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 241 (Thursday, December 16, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 75343]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27483]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act

    Under 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that on November 16, 
2004, a proposed consent decree in United States v. Cabot Corporation, 
et al., Civil Action No. 2:04-cv-5317, was lodged with the United 
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
    In this action the United States sought cost recovery for costs 
incurred in connection with the Revere Chemical Superfund Site located 
in Nockamixon Township, Bucks County, Pennsylvania (the ``Site''). 
Under the terms of the consent decree, the proposed settling defendants 
would pay $929,530.92 to EPA to cover past response costs.
    The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) 
days from the date of this publication comments relating to the consent 
decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, 
Environment and Natural Resources Division, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. 
Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should refer to 
United States v. Cabot Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 2:04-cv-
5317, D.J. Ref. 90-11-2-943/3.
    The consent decree may be examined at the Office of the United 
States Attorney, Suite 1250, 615 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 
19106, and at U.S. EPA Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, 
Pennsylvania 19103-2029. A copy of the consent decree may also be 
examined on the following Department of Justice Web site, http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/open.html. A copy of the consent decree may also be 
obtained by mail from the Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. 
Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611 or by faxing or e-
mailing a request to Tonia Fleetwood (<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#166279787f7738707a7373626179797256636572797c38717960"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c3b7acadaaa2eda5afa6a6b7b4acaca783b6b0a7aca9eda4acb5">[email protected]</span></a>), fax 
no. (202) 514-0097, phone confirmation number (202) 514-1547. In 
requesting a copy of the consent decree without appendices, please 
enclose a check, in the amount of $5.75 (25 cents per page reproduction 
cost) payable to the U.S. Treasury. For the appendices, please add 
$63.75.

Robert Brook,
Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment 
and Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 04-27483 Filed 12-15-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
§ 1508.760 How long may my suspension last? ( a ) If legal or debarment proceedings are initiated at the time of, or during your suspension, the suspension may continue until the conclusion of those proceedings. However, if proceedings are not initiated, a suspension may not exceed 12 months.
( b ) The suspending official may extend the 12 month limit under paragraph (a) of this section for an additional 6 months if an office of a U.S. Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Attorney, or other responsible prosecuting official requests an extension in writing. In no event may a suspension exceed 18 months without initiating proceedings under paragraph (a) of this section.
( c ) The suspending official must notify the appropriate officials under paragraph (b) of this section of an impending termination of a suspension at least 30 days before the 12 month period expires to allow the officials an opportunity to request an extension.
#### Sonu SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-72249.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 12, 2007 *.

Filed March 15, 2007.

Richard E. Oriakhi, Esq., Roman & Singh, LLP, Fremont, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Carol Federighi, Esq., M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Elinor Colbourn, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: KOZINSKI, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Sonu Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an immigration judge’s order denying Singh’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and deny the petition for review.

We review for substantial evidence the BIA’s adverse credibility determination and will reverse only if the record compels a contrary conclusion. *See Singh-Kaur v. INS,*183 F.3d 1147, 1149-50 (9th Cir. 1999).

Because the inconsistencies named by the BIA go to the heart of Singh’s asylum claim, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination. *See Chebchoub v. INS,*257 F.3d 1038,1043 (9th Cir.2001).

Because the asylum claim fails, Singh’s claim for withholding of removal, which requires a higher standard of proof, fails as well. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153,1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Finally, Singh’s claim for protection under CAT also fails because Singh relied upon the same statements that the BIA determined not to be credible. *See id.*at 1157.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Thomas A. Boyle, Appellant, v. The Billboard Publishing Company, Respondent.

Order unanimously affirmed, with costs.
#### Fred V. Prather, defendant in error, v. Charles A. Kropp, plaintiff in error.

Gen. No. 26,941.

Action for services as an architect. Judgment for plaintiff. Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Hosea W. Wells, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1921.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed October 18, 1922.

Monahan & Monahan, for plaintiff in error. Joseph B. Lawier, for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice Taylor

delivered the opinion of the court.
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).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MELWANCHE ARIEF,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-71825

Agency No. A095-634-613

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 21, 2012** 

Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Melwanche Arief, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from the

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

FILED

MAR 02 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
09-71825

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence

the agency’s factual findings, Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th

Cir. 2008), and we review de novo due process claims, Iturribarria v. INS, 321

F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition for review. 

Arief does not challenge the agency’s dispositive finding that his application

is time-barred. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.

1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed abandoned). Accordingly,

his asylum claim fails. 

With respect to his withholding of removal claim, substantial evidence

supports the agency’s findings that Arief’s beating by five unknown individuals

does not constitute persecution because the government was not involved, and

petitioner did not establish that police were unwilling or unable to control his

attackers. See Castro-Perez v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005).

Furthermore, substantial evidence supports the agency’s findings that Arief has not

met his burden in establishing that it is more likely than not he will suffer future

persecution if returned to Indonesia. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018

(9th Cir. 2003); Fakhry v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1057, 1065-66 (9th Cir. 2008)

(evidence of Senegalese applicant’s severe beating and his membership in an
09-71825

opposition group did not compel a finding that it was more likely than not he

would be persecuted upon return).

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s findings that Arief has not

established that he will be tortured by or with the acquiescence of the Indonesian. 

government. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008). 

Accordingly, his CAT claim fails. 

Finally, we reject Arief’s contention that the IJ should have recused himself

and that the IJ impermissibly referred back to the old hearing. See Lata v. INS, 204

F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on due

process claim). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### Narinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-74204.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 12, 2007 *.

Filed March 15, 2007.

Narinder Singh, Eloy, AZ, pro se.

*518Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Office of the District Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Phoenix, AZ, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: KOZINSKI, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Narinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions pro se for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, because the BIA actually addressed the issue. *Abebe v. Gonzales,*432 F.3d 1037, 1041 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc) (“When the BIA has ignored a procedural defect and elected to consider an issue on its substantive merits, we cannot then decline to consider the issue based upon this procedural defect.”). We grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings.

The BIA’s decision in this case preceded *Galeana-Mendoza v. Gonzales,*465 F.3d 1054 (9th Cir.2006), in which we held that “California Penal Code section 243(e) does not qualify as a crime categorically involving moral turpitude.” *Id.*at 1061. We therefore remand for the BIA to reconsider Singh’s eligibility for the petty offense exception contained in 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II) and his requested relief under the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act.

Singh’s request to accept evidence is denied.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
## Court of Appeals

Twelfth Court of Appeals District at Tyler



## B I L L O F C O S T S

Court of Appeals No. 12-14-00233-CV

Trial Court No. 3-42087

Clifford Fairfax

Vs.

Brad Livingston, Et Al

DOCUMENTS FILED AMOUNT FEE PAID BY

Indigent

Filing

Required Texas.gov efiling fee

Supreme Court chapter 51 fee $25.00

$100.00

$20.00

$50.00 Indigent

Indigent

Indigent

Indigent

TOTAL: $195.00

I, Cathy S. Lusk, Clerk of the Court of Appeals, Twelfth Court of Appeals District at Tyler,

Texas, certify that the above copy of the Bill of Costs is true and correct. GIVEN UNDER MY

HAND AND SEAL OF SAID COURT, at Tyler, this 30th day of June 2015

, A.D.

CATHY LUSK, CLERK

By:

_____________________________ Katrina McClenny, Chief Deputy Clerk