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





Certification of CEO and CFO

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 National Property Investors 8 (the "Partnership"), for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Martha L. Long, as the equivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership, and Stephen B. Waters, as the equivalent of the chief financial officer of the Partnership, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:



(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 Partnership.





| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /s/Martha L. Long      
| | Name: Martha L. Long   
| | Date: August 13, 2008  
| |                        
| | /s/Stephen B. Waters   
| | Name: Stephen B. Waters
| | Date: August 13, 2008  



This certification is furnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### § 3203.1 Purpose.

This part sets forth the procedures to be utilized by USDA when transferring excess USDA computers or other technical equipment to an organization for the purposes of distribution to a city, town, or local government entity in a rural area as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 2206b.
Case 2:06-cv-00676-ID-DRB Document 5 Filed 08/29/2006 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00676-ID-DRB Document 5 Filed 08/29/2006 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00676-ID-DRB Document 5 Filed 08/29/2006 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00676-ID-DRB Document 5 Filed 08/29/2006 Page 4 of 4
#### § 93.1 General.

Domestic and imported citrus products are tested to determine whether quality and grade standards are satisfied as set forth in the Florida Citrus Code.
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
You havereached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC)Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC.Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of catalogingand locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications.  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the eventthat publications are no longer available from the original publishing agencysite. (Historical purposes)
**Title:****Mineralresources of the Sheepshead Mountains, Wildcat Canyon, and Table Mountainwilderness study areas, Malheur and Harney Counties, Oregon**** 
SuDocNumber:I19.3:1739-A
ItemNumber: 0620
CGPsystem Number:000594821
 
Report
Plate
 **
Opinion issued April 22, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-13-00987-CV

———————————

HORIZON RADIOLOGY, PA AND FRANK C. POWELL, M.D., Appellants

V.

CRAIG & CRAIG, LLC AND JULIE A. WEBB, INDIVIDUALLY, Appellees

On Appeal from the 269th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 2013-21860

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellants, Horizon Radiology, PA and Frank C. Powell, M.D., have filed 

an agreed motion to dismiss the appeal. No opinion has issued. Accordingly, we 

grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). We 

dismiss all other pending motions as moot.
2

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Massengale and Huddle.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-09-00611-CV

Oasis Legal Finance LLC, Appellant

v.

Paul D. Ross, Victor M. Bonner, Victor M. Bonner & Associates, and 

CDP Legal Escrow, Appellees

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 126TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-GN-08-003486, HONORABLE JOHN K. DIETZ, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Oasis Legal Finance LLC filed a motion requesting that this appeal be

dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1). We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.

 

Diane M. Henson, Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Waldrop and Henson

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: November 10, 2009
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MAI Systems Corporation (the Company) for theperiod ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the Report), I, James D. Dolan, Chief Financial andOperating Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U. S. C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that :

 

1.               TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2.               Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date:  August 23, 2004 | By:    |   /s/ James W. Dolan                |
|------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------|
|                   |   |   James  W. Dolan                        |
|                   |   |   Chief  Financial and Operating Officer |

 

1

----
#### § 93.10 General.

Chemical analyses are performed to detect the presence of aflatoxin in lots of shelled peanuts and peanut products, as well as in other nuts and agricultural products. In addition, proximate chemical analyses for quality determination are performed on oilseeds.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3385 

To provide for the liquidation or reliquidation of certain drawback claims 

relating to petroleum products. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 6, 2006 

Mr. VITTER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To provide for the liquidation or reliquidation of certain 

drawback claims relating to petroleum products. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DRAWBACK CLAIMS RELATING TO PETROLEUM 

4 PRODUCTS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 514 of 

6 the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1514) or any other pro7 vision of law, the Bureau of Customs and Border Protec8 tion of the Department of Homeland Security shall, not 

9 later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this 

10 Act, liquidate or reliquidate each drawback claim deVerDate Aug 31 2005 18:31 Jun 07, 2006 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S3385.IS S3385

sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
2 

•S 3385 IS 

1 scribed in subsection (c) at the full amount in each such 

2 claim. 

3 (b) PAYMENTS OF AMOUNTS DUE.—Any amounts 

4 owed by the United States pursuant to liquidations or re5 liquidations under subsection (a) shall be paid by the Bu6 reau of Customs and Border Protection within 90 days 

7 after such liquidation or reliquidation. 

8 (c) DRAWBACK CLAIMS.—The drawback claims re9 ferred to in subsection (a) are the following: 

Drawback Claim Number: Filing Date:

BQ901000001 ........................................................ 06/27/95

BQ902000000 ........................................................ 07/01/95

BQ903000009 ........................................................ 07/01/95

BQ904000008 ........................................................ 07/12/95

BQ905000007 ........................................................ 07/12/95

BQ906000006 ........................................................ 07/14/95

BQ907000005 ........................................................ 07/14/95

BQ908000004 ........................................................ 07/14/95

BQ909000003 ........................................................ 07/20/95

BQ910000000 ........................................................ 07/20/95

BQ911000009 ........................................................ 07/20/95

BQ900000259 ........................................................ 07/25/95

BQ913000007 ........................................................ 07/25/95

BQ914000006 ........................................................ 07/28/95

BQ915000005 ........................................................ 08/07/95

BQ916000004 ........................................................ 08/07/95 

Æ 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
636.606 Negotiations.       (a) Contracting officers at overseas posts may request a waiver from A/OPE if the contracting officer is unable to negotiate a fee within the six percent limitation. See 615.404–4(c)(4)(i)(B).”    **Parent topic:** Subpart 636.6—Architect-Engineer Services
~-ç~D S7%

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION IX

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

October 17, 2014

Aneth Chapter, Navajo Nation Reservation

P.O. Box 430

Montezuma Creek, UT 85434

ATTN: ADMIN OFFICE

Subject: Public documents at the Aneth Chapter for public inspection

Dear Sir or Madam:

The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency sent you a package containing a number of documents

regarding the McElmo Creek Unit Oil Production Facility on the Navajo Nation Indian Reservation

near the city ofAneth, San Juan County, Utah. Two of these documents contained an error, and need

to be replaced. Please replace the following documents in the package previously sent to you with

the enclosed documents:

1. PUBLIC INFORMATION SHEET

2. AMBIENT AIR QUALITY IMPACT REPORT & FACT SHEET

Your assistance with this matter is greatly appreciate. Feel free to contact me at (415) 947-4156 or

kelly.shaheerah@epa.gov if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

/

Shaheerah Environmental Engineer

Permits Office

Air Division

Enclosures
§ 920.41 Assessments. ( a ) As his or her pro rata share of the expenses which the Secretary finds are reasonable and likely to be incurred by the committee during a fiscal period, each person who first handles kiwifruit during such period shall pay to the committee, upon demand, assessments on all kiwifruit so handled. The payment of assessments for the maintenance and functioning of the committee may be required under this part throughout the period it is in effect, irrespective of whether particular provisions thereof are suspended or become inoperative. If a handler does not pay any assessment within the time prescribed by the committee, the assessment may be subject to an interest or late payment charge, or both, as may be established by the Secretary upon recommendation of the committee.
( b ) The Secretary shall fix the rate of assessment to be paid by each such person during a fiscal period in an amount designed to secure sufficient funds to cover the expenses which may be incurred during such period and to accumulate and maintain a reserve fund equal to approximately one fiscal period's expenses. At any time during or after the fiscal period, the Secretary may increase the rate of assessment in order to secure sufficient funds to cover any later finding by the Secretary relative to the expenses which may be incurred: *Provided,* That any assessment, excluding any amount collected pursuant to § 920.55(c), must be limited to a maximum assessment rate of three and one-half cents per flat, or the equivalent thereof. The Secretary may increase this maximum rate in each succeeding year after the initial year of order operation by the Consumer Price Index (cost of living) for California as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Such increase shall be applied to all kiwifruit handled during the applicable fiscal period. In order to provide funds for the administration of the provisions of this part during the first part of a fiscal period before sufficient operating income is available from assessments on the current year's shipments, the committee may accept the payment of assessments in advance, and may also borrow money for such purposes.
[49 FR 39658, Oct. 10, 1984, as amended at 57 FR 1220, Jan. 12, 1992]
#### Gabino VAZQUEZ-AVILA; Juana Ortiz-Montalvo, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-71239.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Aug. 13, 2007.

Filed Aug. 31, 2007.

*518Nadeem H. Makada, Esq., Burlingame, CA, for Petitioners.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, David V. Bernal, Attorney, Jennifer Paisner, Esq., DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, HAWKINS, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Gabino Vazquez-Avila and Juana OrtizMontalvo, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of their applications for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b). Vazquez also petitions for review of the Administrative Appeals Office’s (“AAO”) denial of his Special Agricultural Worker (“SAW”) application under 8 U.S.C. § 1160. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §§ 1160(e)(3)(A), 1252(a)(2)(D), and we deny each petition.

The BIA correctly denied Ortiz’s application for cancellation of removal because Ortiz had not “been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than 10 years immediately preceding the date of [her] application.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(A). She entered the United States in 1993 and received a notice to appear before an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) in 2000. *Garcia-Ramirez v. Gonzales,*423 F.3d 935, 937 n. 3 (9th Cir.2005) (“[A]n alien’s accrual of physical presence time ends when removal proceedings are commenced against the alien through service of a notice to appear before an IJ.”).

We lack jurisdiction to entertain Vazquez’s challenge to the BIA’s affirmance of the IJ’s discretionary hardship determination, which, although couched in constitutional terms, is nothing more than an argument that the IJ abused its discretion in finding no “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” in Vazquez’s case. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B) (“[N]o court shall have jurisdiction to review—(i) any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section ... 1229b ... of this title.”); *Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales,*424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005).

*519The AAO did not abuse its discretion when it reopened and denied Vazquez’s SAW appeal. The AAO may sua sponte reopen and reconsider its decision on a SAW appeal at any time. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(b). The AAO may deny a reopened appeal as untimely if it was not filed within 30 days of service of the Notice of Decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(3)(iv)(C). On June 16, 1992, the AAO served Vazquez with a Notice of Decision denying his SAW application by mailing it to his last known address. Vazquez’s appeal, filed on May 10, 1993, was thus untimely.

Ortiz’s “stays of voluntary departure and removal will expire upon issuance of the mandate.” *Desta v. Ashcroft,*365 F.3d 741, 750 (9th Cir.2004).

Ortiz’s Petition DENIED; Vazquez’s Petition DISMISSED and DENIED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Bulletin of hardwood marketstatistics [electronic resource]**
 
1989-2000
1997 | 1998 | 1999
2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009
2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013
 
 
SuDoc Number:A 13.79/3:
Item Number:0083-B-04 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000550366
 
February 3, 2020
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          39,198
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                39,198
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,396,369
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,014,491
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,790,216)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,396,369
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               300,224
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               143,290
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             182,672
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (25,738)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (25,738)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (25,738)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (1)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (1)
        

</TABLE>
#### § 906.7 Handle.

*Handle* or *ship* means to transport or sell fruit, or in any other way to place fruit, in the current of commerce between the production area and any point outside thereof in the United States, Canada, or Mexico.
Case 2:06-cv-00678-WKW-SRW Document 7 Filed 09/28/2006 Page 1 of 1
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHANHT REATREY KEO, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE 

CORPORATION, a corporation organized 

and existing under the laws of the United 

States of America (“Freddie Mac”), 

Defendant-Appellee, 

FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE 

AGENCY, as Conservator of Federal Home 

Loan Mortgage Corporation, 

 Intervenor-Defendant-

 Appellee.

No. 19-16984 

D.C. No. 3:19-cv-02688-RS 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Richard Seeborg, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 20, 2021**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

APR 23 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-16984 

Chanht Reatrey Keo appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment 

dismissing her foreclosure-related action alleging federal and state law claims. We 

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s 

dismissal based on res judicata. Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th 

Cir. 2002). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record, Thompson v. 

Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.

Dismissal of Keo’s constitutional claim was proper because the Federal 

Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“Freddie Mac”) is not subject to the due 

process clause of the Fifth Amendment. See Am. Bankers Mortg. Corp. v. Fed. 

Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 75 F.3d 1401, 1409 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Freddie Mac is not 

a government agency subject to the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.”).

Dismissal of Keo’s cancellation of instruments claim was proper because 

Keo failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain 

sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible 

on its face.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Thompson v. 

Ioane, 218 Cal. Rptr. 3d 501, 511-12 (Ct. App. 2017) (elements of a cancellation 

of instruments claim under California law).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 
3 19-16984 

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-09-00245-CV

MARSA HALL,

Appellant

v.

CHARLES C. BELL, TONY R. O'HARE, 

KEVIN MAYFIELD AND JOHN DOE,

Appellees

From the 278th District Court

Walker County, Texas

Trial Court No. 24,621

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Marsa Hall, a prisoner, appeals the dismissal of his lawsuit against several 

employees of the Texas prison system. The trial court dismissed his lawsuit as being 

frivolous. We affirm. 

Hall filed a brief in this appeal in September. Soon thereafter, he filed a motion 

to strike his brief and a motion to stay the appeal. In October, Hall filed another motion 

to strike his brief. From those pleadings, it appeared Hall conceded that there were 

Chapter 14 requirements with which he failed to comply. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.
Hall v. Bell Page 2

CODE ANN. §§ 14.004 (Affidavit Relating to Previous Filings) and 14.005 (Grievance 

System Decision/Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies) (Vernon 2002). The trial 

court does not abuse its discretion in dismissing a suit under either section. See

Draughon v. Cockrell, 112 S.W.3d 775, 776 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2003, no pet.); Hickson 

v. Moya, 926 S.W.2d 397, 399 (Tex. App.--Waco 1996, no pet.). Further, under such 

circumstances, the trial court does not err in dismissing the proceeding as long as the 

dismissal is without prejudice. See Hickman v. Adams, 35 S.W.3d 120, 124 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.). The trial court’s dismissal in this proceeding was 

without prejudice. 

In an order issued on October 7, 2009, we notified Hall that we saw no reason not 

to affirm the trial court’s dismissal since Hall conceded the failure to fully comply with 

Chapter 14 and since the dismissal was without prejudice. We further warned Hall that 

unless Hall, or any party desiring to continue this appeal, showed a reason why these 

motions should not be denied and this appeal affirmed, within 21 days from the date of 

the order, the Court would render an opinion and judgment to that effect.

Hall responded to our order and again conceded that he failed to file an affidavit 

relating to previous filings and failed to file an affidavit regarding the exhaustion of his 

administrative remedies. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. §§ 14.004 (Affidavit 

Relating to Previous Filings) and 14.005 (Grievance System Decision/Exhaustion of 

Administrative Remedies) (Vernon 2002). He again asks that we grant his motions to 

strike his brief and his motion to stay the appeal. However, because Hall concedes in 

his motions and in his response that he has not complied with the procedural 
Hall v. Bell Page 3

requirements of Chapter 14, we find that the trial court did not err in dismissing his 

suit. Accordingly, his motions to strike and motion to stay are denied and the trial 

court’s judgment is affirmed.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Reyna, and

Justice Davis

Motions denied

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed November 10, 2009

[CV06]