alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
32.2




CERTIFICATION




PURSUANT
TO




SECTION
1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE




I, Alicia Borst Derrah, the Vice
President, Accounting Officer and principal financial officer of Man Investments
(USA) Corp., the Managing Member of Man-AHL 130, LLC (“Man-AHL 130”), certify
that (i) the Quarterly Report of Man-AHL 130 on Form 10-Q for the period ending
December 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in
such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of Man-AHL 130.








Date:  February
16, 2010





/s/ Alicia Borst
      DerrahAlicia Borst
      DerrahDirector, Vice
      President, Chief Financial Officer and
Secretary
Order entered December 2 1, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 14 - 01299 - CV IN THE INTEREST OF J .C., ET AL , CHILDREN On Appeal from the 303rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF - 76 - 0 8723 - V



### O RDER W e DENY appellant’s December 10, 2015 motion/request for stay

. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 24. 1

- 24.3 (providing the procedures for suspending enforcement of the trial court’s judgment pending appeal in civil cases).

/s/ CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. Case No. 3:94cr3066/RV 

3:12cv279/RV/CJK

ELVIS WHITE

________________________________________________________________

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge

filed on November 13, 2012, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), and after

reviewing objections to the Recommendation, if any, the Recommendation is adopted

as the opinion of the Court.

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. The amended motion to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (doc. 149)

is SUMMARILY DISMISSED.

3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 14th day of December, 2012.

/s/ Roger Vinson 

ROGER VINSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
#### In the Matter of Jimmy Jeremie R., an Infant. Heart Share Human Services of New York, Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, Respondent; Hilda C., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Haydee R., an Infant. Heart Share Human Services of New York, Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, Respondent; Hilda C., Appellant, et al. Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of Tatiana W., an Infant. Heart Share Human Services of New York, Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, Respondent; Hilda C., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 3.) In the Matter of Iesha W., an Infant. Heart Share Human Services of New York, Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, Respondent; Hilda C., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 4.)

[814 NYS2d 546]

In four related proceedings pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b, inter alia, to terminate parental rights on the ground of mental illness, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of four orders of the Family Court, Kings County (Elkins, J.), all dated November 17, 2004 (one as to each child), as, after a fact-finding hearing, determined that she is presently and for the foreseeable future unable to provide proper and adequate care for the subject children by reason of her mental illness, terminated her parental rights, and transferred custody and guardianship of the subject children to the petitioner and the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York for the purpose of adoption.

*914Ordered that the orders are affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the appellant’s contentions, the Family Court’s conclusion that the appellant is, by reason of mental illness, presently and for the foreseeable future unable to provide proper and adequate care for her four children, was supported by clear and convincing evidence *(see Matter of Dayjah Ann B.,*13 AD3d 518 [2004]; *Matter of Nina D.,*6 AD3d 702 [2004]; *Matter of Demetrius F.,*176 AD2d 940 [1991]).

Moreover, the Family Court, in finding that the mother suffered from a mental illness, providently exercised its discretion in declining to conduct a dispositional hearing *(see Matter of Joyce T.,*65 NY2d 39, 42 [1985]; *Matter of Nina D., supra*at 703). Miller, J.P., Luciano, Lifson and Covello, JJ., concur.
2006-0688.

#### State v. Hawkins.

Hardin App. No. 6-05-11. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.

Pfeifer, J., dissents.
#### MOORE, Respondent, v. NEW YORK & Q. C. R. Co., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 15, 1906.)

Action by Michael Mqpre against the New York & Queens County Railway Company.

No opinion. Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

4:89cr4004-WS

vs. 4:97cv109-WS/WCS

STEVEN DEAN,

Defendant.

 /

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Counsel filed a notice of appeal on Defendant's behalf, doc. 841, and was

granted leave to withdraw. Doc. 845. 

Defendant appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, so a certificate of

appealability is required. § 2253(c)(1)(B); Fed.R.App.P. 22(b). 

To obtain a COA under § 2253(c), a habeas prisoner must make a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a demonstration

that, under Barefoot, includes showing that reasonable jurists could

debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have

been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were

"'adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.'" 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 1603-04, 146 L.Ed.2d 542

(2000); quoting, Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893, n. 4 103 S.Ct. 3383, 3394, n. 4,

77 L.Ed.2d 1090 (1983). 

Case 4:89-cr-04004-WS-WCS Document 847 Filed 06/28/05 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

4:89cr4004-WS and 4:97cv109-WS/WCS

Defendant is not entitled to a certificate of appealability as he has not made a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. The court relies on the

reasons set forth in the supplemental report and recommendation, as corrected and

clarified on remand and adopted by the court. Docs. 799, 837, and 839. Leave to

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal should also be denied. Fed.R.App.P. 24(a)(3) and

(4). 

Since Defendant now proceeds pro se, the clerk is directed to send this order

directly to him. Defendant is advised that he may now seek a certificate of appealability

and leave to proceed in forma pauperis from the court of appeals. Fed.R.App.P.

22(b)(2) (after district court's denial, applicant may request a circuit judge to issue

certificate of appealability) and 24(a)(5) (party has 30 days from service of notice that

district court denied leave to appeal in forma pauperis to file a motion to so proceed in

the court of appeals). 

It is therefore ORDERED:

A certificate of appealability SHALL NOT ISSUE, and leave to appeal in forma

pauperis is DENIED. The clerk shall send a copy of this order to Defendant, who now

appears pro se. 

DONE AND ORDERED this June 28, 2005.

 /s William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:89-cr-04004-WS-WCS Document 847 Filed 06/28/05 Page 2 of 2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JACQUELINE RODRIGUEZ and SHAWN SANGELADJI,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

v.

AMERICANWEST BANK, a Washington corporation and DOES, 1

- 50, inclusive,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 17

- 56588

D.C. No. 2:15

- cv

- 05831

- MRW

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California Michael R. Wilner, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted November 9, 2018

Seattle, Washington

Before: McKEOWN and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and COLLINS, ** District Judge.

Plaintiff

- Appellants Jacqueline Rodriguez and Shawn Sangeladji

(“employees”) appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment on their

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The Honorable Raner C. Collins, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

NOV 23 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 56588

retaliation an d wrongful termination claims against their former employer,

AmericanWest Bank. See Cal. Lab. Code § 1102.5(b). W e have jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291

. We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because t he

employees failed , under the test articulated in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green

,

411 U.S. 792 (1973), to make even a prima facie showing of a causal link between

their alleged protected activity and the adverse employment actions they suffered.

See Morgan v. Regent

s of Univ. of Cal. , 88 Cal. App. 4th 52, 69 (2000). “Essential

to a causal link is evidence that the” decisionmakers in charge of employment

determinations were “aware that the plaintiff had engaged in a protected activity.”

Id . at 70.

Here, as to all bu t one of the areas of allegedly protected activity, the district

court properly found that the employees failed to produce sufficiently probative

evidence that the three managers who actually decided to fire them were aware of

their alleged protected activity. 1 At best, they demonstrated that they made several

complaints to their direct supervisors, who were not the decisionmakers. Further,

1 As to the one remaining area of allegedly protec ted activity

— Sangeladji’s complaints about the security systems in the bank

— Sangeladji produced no evidence that the complaints were about illegal activity, or that he reasonably could have thought they were. See Mokler v. Cty. of Orange , 157 Cal. App. 4th 121, 138 (2007) (explaining that an employee engages in a protected activity when she discloses “reasonably based suspicions of illegal activity” to another employee who has the authority to correct the violation).3 17

- 56588

t he employees have not directed this panel’s attention to any evidence t hat

sufficiently demonstrates that either supervisor told the decisionmakers about the

employees’ complaints.

AFFIRMED.
V 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2427 

To provide for the relief of Lori L. Rogers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 18, 2013 

Mr. STEWART introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To provide for the relief of Lori L. Rogers. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PAYMENT REQUIRED. 

4 Out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise ap5 propriated, the Secretary of the Treasury shall pay to Lori 

6 L. Rogers of West Jordan, Utah, $1,132.32 as reimburse7 ment for the evacuation travel and transportation ex8 penses incurred by Lori L. Rogers in good faith reliance 

9 on erroneous information contained in verbal and written 

10 orders to evacuate from Egypt that the United States 

11 would pay such expenses incident to her evacuation. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         111,371
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               111,371
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 111,371
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,062,087
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        600
<COMMON>                                        54,795
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   111,371
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,755
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                40,720
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             131,705
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (169,670)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (169,670)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (169,670)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.003)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO.: 4:02cr52-SPM

ERIC EUGENE BALCOM,

Defendant.

____________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REDUCE UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 3582

This cause comes before the Court on Defendant’s motion (doc. 103) to

reduce his sentence under the retroactive crack cocaine amendment

(Amendments 706 and 711) and 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c).

Upon review, the Court finds that Defendant is not entitled to a sentence

reduction because application of the guideline amendment results in no change

to his sentencing range. Defendant was subject to a statutory mandatory

minimum sentence, which determined his sentencing range. Because

Defendant’s sentencing range remains the same under the amended guidelines,

he is not eligible for a reduction. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the motion (doc. 103) to reduce

sentence is denied.

DONE AND ORDERED this 24th day of April, 2008.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 4:02-cr-00052-RH-CAS Document 104 Filed 04/24/08 Page 1 of 1
#### § 29.3182 Key to standard grademarks.

## Groups

X—Flyings.

C—Lugs or Cutters

B—Leaf.

T—Tips.

M—Mixed.

N—Nondescript.

S—Scrap.

## Qualities

1—Choice.

2—Fine.

3—Good.

4—Fair.

5—Low.

## Colors

L—Buff.

F—Tan.

FL—Tannish buff.

FR—Tannish red.

R—Red.

D—Dark red.

K—Variegated.

M—Mixed.

V—Greenish.

VF—Greenish tan.

VR—Greenish red.

G—Green.

GF—Green tan.

GR—Green red.

[24 FR 8771, Oct. 29, 1959, as amended at 51 FR 40407, Nov. 7, 1986]
§ 3201.37 De-Icers. ( a ) *Definition.* Chemical products (*e.g.,* salts, fluids) that are designed to aid in the removal of snow and/or ice, and/or in the prevention of the buildup of snow and/or ice, by lowering the freezing point of water.
( b ) *Minimum biobased content.* The preferred procurement product must have a minimum biobased content of at least 93 percent, which shall be based on the amount of qualifying biobased carbon in the product as a percent of the weight (mass) of the total organic carbon in the finished product.
( c ) *Preference compliance dates.* No later than July 6, 2020, procuring agencies, in accordance with this part, will give a procurement preference for qualifying biobased de-icers. By that date, Federal agencies responsible for drafting or reviewing specifications for products to be procured shall ensure that the relevant specifications require the use of biobased de-icers.
[73 FR 27994, May 14, 2008, as amended at 84 FR 32020, July 5, 2019]
#### § 353.2 Purpose and administration.

The export certification program does not require certification of any exports, but does provide certification of plants and plant products as a service to exporters. After assessing the phytosanitary condition of the plants or plant products intended for export, relative to the receiving country's regulations, an inspector issues an internationally recognized phytosanitary certificate, a phytosanitary certificate for reexport, or an export certificate for processed plant products if warranted. APHIS also enters into written agreements with industry to allow the issuance of industry-issued certificates giving assurance that a plant product has been handled, processed, or inspected in a manner required by a foreign government. An industry-issued certificate includes an ISPM 15 quality/treatment mark.

[61 FR 15368, Apr. 8, 1996, as amended at 64 FR 72264, Dec. 27, 1999; 72 FR 35917, July 2, 2007; 81 FR 40151, June 21, 2016]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE ANNUAL
AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENT AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-2000             MAY-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1999             JUN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-2000             MAY-31-1999
<CASH>                                         265,265                       0
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  344,173                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (10,000)                       0
<INVENTORY>                                    459,434                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,081,519                       0
<PP&E>                                         724,042                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                               (682,526)                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,157,123                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          281,245                       0
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                     2,383,385                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,507,507)                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,157,123                       0
<SALES>                                      1,925,738               1,432,373
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,943,955               1,455,879
<CGS>                                      (1,122,775)               (962,234)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              (1,883,573)             (1,756,202)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 60,382               (300,323)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (800)                   (800)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             59,582               (301,123)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    59,582               (301,123)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.04                  (0.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.04                  (0.21)


</TABLE>
Case 4:01-cv-00385-SPM Document 4 Filed 08/27/01 Page 1 of 6
Case 4:01-cv-00385-SPM Document 4 Filed 08/27/01 Page 2 of 6
Case 4:01-cv-00385-SPM Document 4 Filed 08/27/01 Page 3 of 6
Case 4:01-cv-00385-SPM Document 4 Filed 08/27/01 Page 4 of 6
Case 4:01-cv-00385-SPM Document 4 Filed 08/27/01 Page 5 of 6
Case 4:01-cv-00385-SPM Document 4 Filed 08/27/01 Page 6 of 6
#### Arthur Horn, Appellant, v New York City Employees’ Retirement System et al., Respondents.

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on April 5, 1979, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements; appeal from order of said court entered on March 30, 1979 dismissed as nonappealable, without costs and without disbursements. No opinion. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Fein, Appellant. and Lupiano, JJ.
#### § 28.125 No voiding or modifying claims for payment.

Nothing in this subpart shall be construed to void or modify any claim which a person or party requesting and paying for a service may have against any other person or party for the payment of part or all of such costs.
Editorial Note on Part 3407
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 3407 appear at 76 FR 4810, Jan. 27, 2011.

§ 3407.9 Use of environmental documents in decisionmaking. In carrying out agency responsibilities under NEPA, NIFA officials shall: ( a ) Consider all relevant environmental documents in evaluating programs, proposals, or projects for final agency action.
( b ) Make all relevant final environmental documents, comments, and responses part of the record in rulemaking and adjudicatory proceedings.
( c ) Ensure that all relevant final environmental documents, comments, and responses are submitted to NIFA in a timely fashion, are subjected to normal agency review processes, and are made a part of the official record.
( d ) Consider only those alternatives encompassed by the range of alternatives discussed in the relevant environmental documents when evaluating plans, programs, or proposals for agency action.
**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 AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) for the fiscal quarter ended June 30,2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, David Johnston, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to hisknowledge on the date hereof: 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities 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. 

Date: August 6, 2010