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

                            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 of Tofutti Brands Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending April 2, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David
Mintz, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the
Company.


/s/David Mintz*
--------------
David Mintz
Chief Executive Officer
Date: March 21, 2006

* The originally executed copy of this Certification will be maintained at the
Company's offices and will be made available for inspection upon request.
Editorial Note on Part 36
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 36 appear at 61 FR 7217, Feb. 27, 1996, and 86 FR 51275, Sept. 15, 2021.

§ 36.4208 Manufactured home location standards. ( a ) Any rental site on which a manufactured home to be purchased with a guaranteed loan will be placed must qualify as an acceptable rental site as follows: ( 1 ) Be located within a manufactured home park or subdivision which is acceptable to the Department of Veterans Affairs; or
( 2 ) Be a site which is not within a manufactured home park or subdivision provided that ( i ) the site is determined by the Department of Veterans Affairs to be an acceptable rental site, or
( ii ) in the absence of a determination by the Department of Veterans Affairs in respect to such site the manufactured home purchaser and the dealer certify to the Secretary as follows: ( A ) Placement of the manufactured home on the site or lot is not a violation of zoning laws or other local requirements applicable to manufactured homes;
( B ) The site or lot is served by water and sanitary facilities which are approved by the local public authority and which are acceptable to the Department of Veterans Affairs;
( C ) The site or lot is served by an all-weather street or road;
( D ) The site or lot is not known to be subject to conditions that may be hazardous to the health or safety of the manufactured home occupants or that may endanger the manufactured home; and
( E ) The site is free from, and the location of the manufactured home thereon will not substantially contribute to, adverse scenic or environmental conditions.
( b ) No manufactured home purchased with a guaranteed loan may be placed on a lot owned by an eligible veteran or on a lot to be purchased or improved with the proceeds of a guaranteed manufactured home loan unless the lot owned or to be so purchased or improved is determined by the Department of Veterans Affairs to be an acceptable manufactured home site.
( c ) A manufactured home park or subdivision which is not approved by the Federal Housing Administration will be acceptable to the Department of Veterans Affairs for the purpose of 38 U.S.C. 3712 if the Secretary determines that the park or subdivision, whether existing or proposed, ( 1 ) is designed to encourage the maintenance and development of manufactured home sites which will be free from, and not substantially contribute to, adverse scenic and environmental conditions, and
( 2 ) complies otherwise with the applicable standards for planning, construction, and general acceptability prescribed by the Secretary.
[36 FR 1253, Jan. 27, 1971, as amended at 55 FR 37472, Sept. 12, 1990; 56 FR 9855, Mar. 8, 1991]
§ 17.805 Additional terms of loans. In the operation of each residence established with the assistance of the loan, the recipient must agree to the following: ( a ) The use of alcohol or any illegal drugs in the residence will be prohibited;
( b ) Any resident who violates the prohibition of alcohol or any illegal drugs will be expelled from the residence;
( c ) The cost of maintaining the residence, including fees for rent and utilities, will be paid by residents;
( d ) The residents will, through a majority vote of the residents, otherwise establish policies governing the conditions of the residence, including the manner in which applications for residence are approved;
( e ) The residence will be operated solely as a residence for not less than six veterans.
(Authority: Sec. 8 of Pub. L. 102-54, 105 Stat. 271, 38 U.S.C. 501)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

XIA MEI CHEN,

Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 14-72838

Agency No. A088-276-541

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 25, 2016**

Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Xia Mei Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the 

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

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

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture 

 

* 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

NOV 2 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial 

evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse 

credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 

F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination 

based on the IJ’s negative demeanor finding and on Chen’s internally inconsistent 

testimony as to the circumstances of her release from detention. See Shrestha, 590 

F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the totality of the 

circumstances); Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1153 (9th Cir. 2014) (“The need 

for deference [to agency credibility determinations] is particularly strong in the 

context of demeanor assessments.”). Chen’s explanations do not compel a 

contrary result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Substantial 

evidence also supports the BIA’s determination that, even if Chen is Christian, she 

failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution in China. See Gu v. 

Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1022 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner failed to present 

compelling evidence of a well-founded fear of future persecution).

Because Chen failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she necessarily failed

to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Huang, 744 F.3d at 1156.
3 

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief 

because Chen failed to show it is more likely than not that she would be tortured 

by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Chinese government. See id. at 

1156.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
## \ Auburn-Lew i sto n Municipa l Airport 

# FI vt o M E 

# /L >

SUSAf J U . COLLIN S tiiMi>n«B«*nc**< fMAAM 3 .uMaDunc n



# ••Bnitc d grate s Senat e tnxy*.i v Il l WASHINGTOU . DC 7<ntO-l99 ' Augus t 2.'? , 201 0 Honorabl e Ra yLaHood . Sccrctan ' U.S . Departmen t o fTransportatio n 40 0 7 ^ Stree t S W Washington , D C 2059 0 

### Dea r SecretaPi ' I.al-Iood : I a m writin g t o expres s m ysuppor tto rth e Auburn - Lcwisto n Municipa l Airport' s proposa l unde rth e Smal l Communit yAi rSer\-ic e Developmen t program . Th e SCAS D plan s t o us e thi s assistanc e t o hel p establis h th e Auburn - Lcwisto n .Municipa l .Airpor ta s a majo rgatewa y fo rnational , commercia l ai rtransportatio n i n centra l Maine . I as k tha tyo u giv e thi s prppo.sa l al l appropriat e consideratio n durin g th e revie wprocess . Th e onl yacces s t o ai rscr\'ie e fro m th e Aubum-Lcwislo n are a i s th e Portlan d Airport , whic h i s ove ra 4 5 minut e driv e t o th e sout h o n Lilerstat e 95 . 'I"h cpopulatio n i n Aubum Lcwisto n ha s consistentl ygrow n i n recen t years , an d th e loca l airpor teoul d bette rserv e thi s population , i fi t coul d e.\pan d t o nationa l ai rser\'ices . Thi s e.^cpansio n projec twoul d allo wth e .Auburn - Lcwisto n airpor t t o hel p enhanc e th e economi cwel l bein g o fth e region . Th e .Aubum-Lewisto n Municipa l Airport' s proposa l reflect s th e imiovatio n an d dedicatio n t o th e improvemen t o feconomi ccondition s o fcentra l Main e an d tli e accessibilit yo f mor e convenieii t ai rtrave l fo rit s population . I commen d tli e Aubum-Lewisto n Municipa l .Airpor t fo rit s progressive , dctail-oricntc d pla n an d I express m ysuppor t o fth e airport s expansio n unde rth e Smal l Communit yAirSer\'ic e Developmen t program . Pleas e notif yCarlen e Trembla yo n m yLcwisto n Slat e OfTice . at(207 ) 784-6969 , whe n a final decisio n ha s bee n made . Than k yo u fo ryou rtimel yattentio n t o thi s matter . Sincerely . — 1



## > ^ K J (X I 

# 5.^ 5 e n



# W'<44a*e.JL.g^*g4^'8^h« ^ Susa n M . Collin s Unite d State s Senato r

Auburn-Lewisto n Municipa l Airpor t - Smal l Communit yAi rServic e Developmen t Gran t - Augus t 201 0
Editorial Note on Part 3
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 3 appear at 61 FR 7216, Feb. 27, 1996; 62 FR 35970, July 3, 1997; 62 FR 47532, Sept. 9, 1997; and 67 FR 46868, July 17, 2002.

§ 3.454 Veterans disability pension. Apportionment of disability pension will be as follows: ( a ) Where a veteran with spouse, or child is incompetent and without legal fiduciary and is maintained in an institution by the United States or any political subdivision thereof, $25 monthly will be paid as an institutional award to the Director of a Department of Veterans Affairs medical center or chief officer of a non-Department of Veterans Affairs institution for the use of the veteran, and the balance will be paid to the dependent or dependents. If the veteran has no spouse, or child but has a dependent parent, apportionment will be in accordance with § 3.451.
( b ) ( 1 ) Where the amount of section 306 pension payable to a married veteran under 38 U.S.C. 1521(b), as in effect on December 31, 1978, is reduced to $50 monthly under § 3.551(c), an apportionment may be made to such veteran's spouse upon an affirmative showing of hardship. The amount of the apportionment generally will be the difference between $50 and the total amount of pension payable on December 31, 1978. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5503(a))
( 2 ) Where the amount of improved pension payable to a married veteran under 38 U.S.C. 1521(b) is reduced to $60 monthly under § 3.551(d) or (e)(2), an apportionment may be made to such veteran's spouse upon an affirmative showing of hardship. The amount of the apportionment generally will be the difference between $50 and the rate payable if pension was being paid under 38 U.S.C. 1521(c) including the additional amount payable under 38 U.S.C. 1521(e) if the veteran is so entitled. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5503(a))
( 3 ) Where the amount of improved pension payable to a married veteran under 38 U.S.C. 1521(b) is reduced to $90 monthly under § 3.551(e)(1) an apportionment may be made to such veteran's spouse upon an affirmative showing of hardship. The amount of the apportionment generally will be the difference between $90 and the rate payable if pension was being paid under 38 U.S.C. 1521(c) including the additional amount payable under 38 U.S.C. 1521(e) if the veteran is so entitled.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5503(a))
[40 FR 36329, Aug. 20, 1975, as amended at 44 FR 45940, Aug. 6, 1979; 56 FR 65850, 65851, Dec. 19, 1991; 57 FR 7847, Mar. 4, 1992; 68 FR 34542, June 10, 2003]
§ 42.27 Computation of time. ( a ) In computing any period of time under this part or in an order issued thereunder, the time begins with the date following the act, event, or default, and includes the last day of the period, unless it is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday observed by the Federal government, in which event it includes the next business day.
( b ) When the period of time allowed is less than seven days, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays observed by the Federal government shall be excluded from the computation.
( c ) Where a document has been served or issued by placing it in the mail, an additional five days will be added to the time permitted for any response.
#### § 23.200 Application.

Except as provided in §§ 23.205 through 23.235(a), these Title IX regulations apply to every recipient and to each education program or activity operated by such recipient that receives Federal financial assistance.
###### Editorial Note on Part 3

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 3 appear at 61 FR 7216, Feb. 27, 1996; 62 FR 35970, July 3, 1997; 62 FR 47532, Sept. 9, 1997; and 67 FR 46868, July 17, 2002.

#### § 3.373 [Reserved]
§ 20.703 Rule 703. When a hearing before the Board of Veterans' Appeals may be requested; procedure for requesting a change in method of hearing. ( a ) *How to request a hearing.* An appellant, or an appellant's representative, may request a hearing before the Board when submitting the Notice of Disagreement, or when requesting to modify the Notice of Disagreement, as provided in Rule 202 (§ 20.202). Requests for such hearings at any other time will be rejected.
( b ) *Board's determination of method of hearing.* Following the receipt of a request for a hearing, the Board shall determine, for purposes of scheduling the hearing for the earliest practical date, whether a hearing before the Board will be held at its principal location or by picture and voice transmission at a facility of the Department located within the area served by a regional office of the Department.
( c ) *Notification of method of hearing.* The Board will notify the appellant and his or her representative of the method of a hearing before the Board.
( d ) *How to request a change in method of hearing.* If an appellant declines to participate in the method of hearing selected by the Board, the appellant's opportunity to participate in a hearing before the Board shall not be affected. Upon notification of the method of the hearing requested pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section, an appellant may make one request for a different method of the requested hearing. If the appellant makes such a request, the Board shall grant the request and notify the appellant of the change in method of the hearing.
( e ) *Notification of scheduling of hearing.* The Board will notify the appellant and his or her representative of the scheduled time and location for the requested hearing not less than 30 days prior to the hearing date. This time limitation does not apply to hearings which have been rescheduled due to a postponement requested by an appellant, or on his or her behalf, or due to the prior failure of an appellant to appear at a scheduled hearing before the Board of Veterans' Appeals with good cause. The right to notice at least 30 days in advance will be deemed to have been waived if an appellant accepts an earlier hearing date due to the cancellation of another previously scheduled hearing.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7105(a), 7107)
[84 FR 186, Jan. 18, 2019]
#### § 59.120 Hearings.

If the Secretary determines that a submission from a State does not meet the requirements of this part, the Secretary will advise the State by letter that a grant is tentatively denied, explain the reasons for the tentative denial, and inform the State of the opportunity to appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 7105. Decisions under this part are not subject to the provisions of § 17.133 of this order.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 101, 501, 511, 1710, 1742, 7101-7298, 8105, 8131-8137)
#### Emile Rieser, Respondent, *v.*Charles F. Parker & Co., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,

April, 1899.)

Greater Hew York charter (Laws of 1897, chap. 378, § 1364) —Municipal Court has no jurisdiction of an action against a foreign corporation for money only.

In so far as section 1364 of the Greater New York charter (Laws of 1897, chap. 378) confers upon the Municipal Court of said city jurisdiction of an action against a foreign corporation for the recovery of money only, the section violates sections 14 and 18 of ■ article VI of the Constitution of 1894 and is therefore nugatory.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Municipal Court, eighth district, borough of Manhattan, rendered in favor of the plaintiff.

Stickney, Spencer & Ordway, for appellant.

Story & Stratton, for respondent.

MacLean, J.

It appearing in this action, one for the recovery of money only, that the defendant was a corporation created by and under the laws of the state of Hew Jersey, and, therefore, not a resident of the county of Hew York, objection was made that *206the .court below, the Municipal Court of the city of Mew York, being, as has been held. (Matter of Schultes, 33 App. Div. 524), a local inferior court created since the adoption of the present Constitution, had not jurisdiction of the defendant, because it is provided in the Constitution (Art. VI,. § 18): *“*The Legislature shall not hereafter confer upon any inferior or local court of its creation, * * * any greater jurisdiction * * * than is conferred upon County Courts by or under this article,” and County,Courts have not, and so are expressly prohibited from having, such jurisdiction, in that the Constitution (Art. VI, § 14) further provides: “ that their jurisdiction shall not be so extended as to authorize an action therein for the recovery of money only * * * in which any person not a resident of the county is a defendant.” The objection was well taken, notwithstanding that the Greater Mew York charter (§ 1364) has ■ ordained - that *“*the said municipal court has jurisdiction in * * * an action against * * * a foreign corporation having an office in the City of Mew York.”, By its very creation in and by the state of Mew Jersey, the defendant was made a resident of and domiciled within that state, from which it was incapable of passing personally.' Plimpton v. Bigelow, 93 N. Y. 598. In so far as it confers upon the Municipal Court jurisdiction in an action for the recovery of money only against a foreign corporation, section 1364 of the Greater Mew Yoi'k charter is unconstitutional and, therefore, nugatory.

The judgment should he reversed. .

Ebeedman, P. J., and Leventbxtt, J., concur.

Judgment reversed, with costs to appellant.
#### WESTERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES

May 11, 1925.

[59 C. Cls. 67; 268 U. S. 271]

Judgment was rendered in favor of the United States in the court below. On appeal the judgment was *reversed,*the Supreme Court deciding:

1. Where transportation bills at land-grant rates bore endorsements sufficiently notifying government officers that payment at those rates to the railroad was not accepted in final settlement, the railroad was not barred by acquiescence from further claiming the difference between the amounts received and the lawful tariff fares. See *Southern Pacific Go.*v. *United States,*268 U. S. 263.

2. Claims accruing more than six years before beginning the action in the Court of Claims are barred by Jud. Code section 156.

3. The provision of Kov. Stats., section 3477, that all transfers and assignments of any claim against the United States shall be absolutely null and void unless made after the allowance of such claims and the ascertainment of the amount due, does not apply to a transfer of claims through a judicial sale under an order of court. *St. Paul Railroad*v. *United States,*112 U. S. 733, distinguished.

Mr. Justice SaNeoRd

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court
§ 21.420 Informing the veteran. ( a ) *General.* VA will inform a veteran in writing of findings affecting receipt of benefits and services under Chapter 31. This includes veterans: ( 1 ) Requesting benefits and services; or
( 2 ) In receipt of benefits and services.
( b ) *Notification:* Each notification should include the following: ( 1 ) Identification of the issues adjudicated.
( 2 ) A summary of the evidence considered by the Secretary.
( 3 ) A summary of the applicable laws and regulations relevant to the decision.
( 4 ) Identification of findings favorable to the veteran.
( 5 ) In the case of a denial of a claim, identification of elements not satisfied leading to the denial.
( 6 ) An explanation of how to obtain or access evidence used in making the decision.
( 7 ) A summary of the applicable review options available for the veteran to seek further review of the decision.
( c ) *Adverse action.* An adverse action is one, other than an interim action such as a suspension of benefits pending development, which: ( 1 ) Denies Chapter 31 benefits, when such benefits have been requested;
( 2 ) Reduces or otherwise diminishes benefits being received by the veteran; or
( 3 ) Terminates receipt of benefits for reasons other than scheduled interruptions which are a part of the veteran's plan.
( d ) *Prior notification of adverse action.* VA shall give the veteran a period of at least 30 days to review, prior to its promulgation, an adverse action other than one which arises as a consequence of a change in training time or other such alteration in circumstances. During that period, the veteran shall be given the opportunity to: ( 1 ) Meet informally with a representative of VA;
( 2 ) Review the basis for VA decision, including any relevant written documents or material; and
( 3 ) Submit to VA any material which he or she may have relevant to the decision.
( e ) *Favorable findings.* Any finding favorable to the veteran is binding on all subsequent agency of original jurisdiction and Board of Veterans' Appeals adjudicators, unless rebutted by evidence that identifies a clear and unmistakable error in the favorable finding.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3102, 5104, 5104A, and 7105)
[49 FR 40814, Oct. 18, 1984, as amended at 54 FR 40872, Oct. 4, 1989; 84 FR 193, Jan. 18, 2019]
§ 23.125 Effect of other requirements. ( a ) *Effect of other Federal provisions.* The obligations imposed by these Title IX regulations are independent of, and do not alter, obligations not to discriminate on the basis of sex imposed by Executive Order 11246, 3 CFR, 1964-1965 Comp., p. 339; as amended by Executive Order 11375, 3 CFR, 1966-1970 Comp., p. 684; as amended by Executive Order 11478, 3 CFR, 1966-1970 Comp., p. 803; as amended by Executive Order 12087, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 230; as amended by Executive Order 12107, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 264; sections 704 and 855 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 295m, 298b-2); Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e *et seq.*); the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (29 U.S.C. 206); and any other Act of Congress or Federal regulation.
( b ) *Effect of State or local law or other requirements.* The obligation to comply with these Title IX regulations is not obviated or alleviated by any State or local law or other requirement that would render any applicant or student ineligible, or limit the eligibility of any applicant or student, on the basis of sex, to practice any occupation or profession.
( c ) *Effect of rules or regulations of private organizations.* The obligation to comply with these Title IX regulations is not obviated or alleviated by any rule or regulation of any organization, club, athletic or other league, or association that would render any applicant or student ineligible to participate or limit the eligibility or participation of any applicant or student, on the basis of sex, in any education program or activity operated by a recipient and that receives Federal financial assistance.