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



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the
Quarterly Report of SunCoast Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, John S. Wilks, Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer) of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as added by § 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. | To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for
the period covered by the report.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|      |  |              |  |  |  |     |  |                                                                                                      
|----- |  | ------------ |  |  |  | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: |  | May 12, 2004 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/    JOHN S. WILKS                                                                                 
|      |  |              |  |  |  |     |  |                                                                                                      
|      |  |              |  |  |  |     |  | John S. Wilks, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting
Officer)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LUIS ROBERTO LEMUS RIVERA, AKA 

Luis Lemusrivera, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 15-70582 

Agency No. A206-408-429 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 11, 2019**

Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges. 

Luis Roberto Lemus Rivera, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for 

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal 

from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, 

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

* 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

DEC 13 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-70582 

Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in 

part the petition for review.

In his opening brief, Lemus Rivera does not challenge the agency’s 

dispositive bases for denying his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and 

relief under CAT. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 

2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are 

waived).

We do not consider the materials Lemus Rivera references in his opening 

brief that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 

963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Lemus Rivera’s contentions that he

established a nexus between the harm he experienced or fears in El Salvador and a

political opinion because he did not raise this claim before the BIA. See Barron v. 

Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review 

claims not presented to the agency). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
PO Box 4055, Greenville, SC 29608 - 864.492.1648 - www.m3partnersllc.com

March 17, 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591

Subject: M3 PARTNERS, LLC (DBA WHITE TOP UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS WT-UAS 

PETITION 

 FOR EXEMPTION

To Whom It May Concern:

Please accept this petition for exemption on behalf of M3 Partners, LLC.

Our petition is submitted with the desire to operate UAS’s in conjunction with M3 Partners business 

supporting helicopter/helipad & real estate services. 

M3 Partners owners have extensive knowledge and experience in both the civilian and military aviation 

fields and would like to bring this knowledge to the safe operational control of UAS’s to support and 

enhance its business. 

The knowledge and tools that M3 Partners has created to assist in making helicopter and helipad 

operations safer are prime examples of our continual focus on safety and the belief that safety can 

always be improved upon. It is this same determination that we can bring to our UAS operations if we 

are granted an exemption and serve as an example of how a deep understanding of best practices from 

the civilian and military aviation sectors can be applied to UAS operations. An exemption would also 

allow our business to grow and operate more efficiently allowing M3 Partners to expand and provide 

increased employment opportunities to our local community. 

We look forward to working with the Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation 

Administration at the inception of commercial UAS operations. We respectfully request that our petition 

be granted and allow M3 Partners to serve as a role model for UAS operations now and in the future. 

Respectfully, 

Michael W. Middleton Martin J. Fisher

President Member
Exhibit
10.2


 


MODIFICATION OF SECURED PROMISSORY NOTE


 


 


WHEREAS, this agreement is in reference to a loan which is evidence by
an instrument entitled Secured Promissory Note, (NOTE), dated February 20,
2001, executed by LEE PHARMACEUTICALS for the original principal sum of
Three Hundred Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($300,000.00) and payable to the
order of PREFERRED BUSINESS CREDIT, INC.


 


Principal balance outstanding on this Note as of this date is One
Hundred and Ninety Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($190,000.00).


 


 


NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned parties agree that the Note shall be
amended in the following respect:


 


 


The monthly principal payment of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) will
continue until this Note is paid in full.


 


The term of this Note shall be extended to May 20, 2004.


 


 


Except as noted above, all the terms, conditions and provisions of said
Note shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.


 


 


	
  Date: February 4, 2003

  	
   

  	
  Loan Number: LEE08

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  PREFERRED BUSINESS CREDIT, INC.

  	
   

  	
  LEE PHARMACEUTICALS

  
	
  a California corporation

  	
   

  	
  a California corporation

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
  FARHAD MOTIA

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  RONALD G. LEE

  
	
  Farhad Motia, President

  	
   

  	
  Ronald G. Lee, President
#### S. Jacobs, *Plaintiff in*Error, *v.*John Scheurer, *Defendant in Error.*

1. Under the statute a judgment may be a general lien on the defendant’s real estate without reference to the record of his title, and land actually conveyed before the judgment is rendered is not affected by the lien of the judgment where the liability on which the judgment was recovered had no relation • to the property and accrued subsequent to its conveyance by the judgment debtor.

2. Where a conveyance of land is duly recorded before the levy of an execution on the land, the purchaser at the execution sale is under the statute not a purchaser of the land without notice of the prior conveyance, and takes subject thereto.

This case was decided by the Court eu Banc.

Writ of error to the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County.

The facts iu the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

*H. S.*Hampton, for Plaintiff in Error;

*H. S.*Phillips, for Defendant in Error.

*217Whitfield, C. J.

— In an action of ejectment Sclieurer recovered certain real estate and Jacobs took a writ of error.

It appears that on May 19th, 1886, John T. Lesley bj deed conveyed to Scheurer the land in controversy with other lands; that in the record of the deed on August 9, 1886, the description of this land was omitted; that on June 3, 1889, a judgment was procured against Lesley for a liability that “had no relation to said property and accrued subsequent to May 19,1886; that on March 16,1907, the conveyance from Lésley to Scheurer was again recorded showing that it covered the property in controversy; that an execution' was issued on the judgment and levied on the land as the property of Lesley on June 2, 1907, and a sale of the land under the execution of July 1, 1907, was made to S. Jacobs; that Jacobs had no personal knowledge of the improper record of the conveyance at the execution sale; that Jacobs was in possession of the property when Scheurer brought ejectment therefor. The court rendered judgment for the plaintiff.

The defendant, Jacobs, argues here that as the first record of the conveyance omitted the description of the land, the purchase of it by him at the execution sale without actual notice of the conveyance, gave him a good title as against Scheurer.

The judgment rendered against John T. Lesley was a general lien on his real estate without. reference to the record of his title, and as he had before the jugdment was rendered conveyed the land it was not subject to the judgment against him when the liability on which the judgment .was recovered “had no relation, to .the property and accrued subsequent to the” conveyance in 1886.

The conveyance by Lesley to Scheurer made in 1886 was properly recorded on March 16, 1907, before the levy of *218the execution under which Jacobs purchased; and under the statute such record was notice to the purchaser at the execution sale on July 1, 1907, therefore Jacobs is not a purchaser without notice and consequently took his conveyance subject to the title of Scheurer, of which he had constructive notice.

The judgment is affirmed.

Taylor, Shackleford, Cockrell and Hocicer. J. J., concur.
#### A. D. Zackary *et al., Plaintiffs in Error,*v. Georgia, Florida & Alabama Railway Company, a Corporation, *Defendant in Error.*

1. A motion for a new trial is addressed to the sound judicial discretion of trial Courts, and where a trial court grants such a motion, the action in doing so is presumed to be in accordance with the justice and merits of the case, unless the contrary appears by the record. An order of the trial court granting a new trial should not be disturbed by an appellate court, unless it appears affirmatively from the record that there has been an abuse of a sound judicial discretion, onthat some settled principle of law has been violated.

2. When the trial court grants a motion for a new trial and one of the grounds of the motion is that the verdict is not supported by the evidence, and it does not appear upon what *420ground the motion was granted, and there is conflicting testimony upon a material issue in the cause, the appellate court will not reverse the order where there is no palpable preponderance of evidence in favor of the verdict.

This case was decided by Division. A.

Writ of error to the Circuit Court for Leon County.

The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

*Geo. B. PerMns*and *W. G. Hodges,*for Plaintiffs in Error.

*Fred T.*Meyers, for Defendant in Error.

Whitfield, C. J.

— This writ of error was taken under the statute to an order granting a new trial in an action at law. The only matter for determination is the alleged error in granting the new trial.

A motion for new trial is addressed to the sound judicial discretion of the trial courts, and where a trial court grants such a motion the action in doing so is presumed to be in accordance with the justice and merits of the case, unless the contrary appears by the record. An order of the trial court granting a new trial should not be disturbed by an appellate court, unless it appears affirmatively from the record that there has been an abuse of a sound judicial discretion, or that some settled principle of law has been violated.

When the trial court grants a motion for new trial and one of the grounds of the motion is that the verdict is not supported by the evidence, and it does not appear upon what ground the motion was granted, and there is conflicting testimony upon a material issue in the cause, the appellate court’ will not reverse the order where there is no palpable preponderance of evidence in favor of the ver*421diet. Jones v. Jacksonville Electric Co., 56 Fla. 452, 47 South. Rep. 1.

The evidence does not clearly establish that the injury alleged was proximately caused by the negligence or fault of the defendant, and there is evidence to the contrary, therefore under the rules announced in previous cases the order of the trial court granting a new trial is affirmed.

Shackleford and Cockrell, J. J., concur;

Taylor, Hocker and Parkhill, J. J., concur in the opinion.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 457 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 457

To require that $1 coins issued during 2019 honor President George H.W. 
Bush and to direct the Secretary of the Treasury to issue bullion coins 
                 during 2019 in honor of Barbara Bush.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 12, 2019

   Mr. Cornyn (for himself, Mr. Portman, Mr. Cruz, Mr. King, and Ms. 
   Collins) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
    referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require that $1 coins issued during 2019 honor President George H.W. 
Bush and to direct the Secretary of the Treasury to issue bullion coins 
                 during 2019 in honor of Barbara Bush.

    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 ``President George H.W. Bush and 
Barbara Bush Coin Act''.

SEC. 2. COINS HONORING PRESIDENT GEORGE H.W. BUSH AND BARBARA BUSH.

    (a) Circulating $1 Coins Honoring President George H.W. Bush.--
Notwithstanding subsections (d), (n)(2)(E), (n)(3), (n)(4), and (n)(8) 
of section 5112 of title 31, United States Code, in addition to the 
coins to be issued under subsection (r) of such section 5112, and in 
accordance with the other provisions of subsection (n) of such section 
5112, $1 coins issued during the 1-year period beginning on January 1, 
2019, shall bear the image of President George H.W. Bush.
    (b) Bullion Coins Honoring Barbara Bush.--Notwithstanding 
paragraphs (1) and (5)(C) of section 5112(o) of title 31, United States 
Code, and in accordance with the other provisions of such section 
5112(o), the Secretary of the Treasury shall, during the 1-year period 
beginning on January 1, 2019, issue bullion coins that bear the image 
of Barbara Bush.
                                 <all>
```
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-31263 Summary Calendar

BENJAMIN BOYD; JOHN BAZILE, III, Individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated; JUAN P. SCOTT; CYNTHIA HOWARD; DAVID A. JOHNSON, Plaintiffs-Appellants, EDWARD BAINES, Movant-Appellant,

versus CHARLES C. FOTI, JR., Individually and in his capacity as Criminal Sheriff of Orleans Parish; THE ORLEANS PARISH CRIMINAL SHERIFF’S OFFICE, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 94-CV-204-B

-------------------- August 7, 2001 Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment denying them relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq

. They argue that (1) they were wrongfully denied overtime compensation because the district court erroneously determined that certain of them fell within the “law enforcement” exception to the FLSA and (2) the trial court applied the wrong statute ofNo. 00-31263 -2- limitations based on its erroneous finding that the Sheriff did not “willfully” violate the FLSA. Plaintiffs mistakenly construe the district court’s decision denying them overtime compensation as the product of their classification as law enforcement personnel. The district court ultimately based its decision that no overtime was owed on the fact that neither their testimony nor the exhibits established that the Department of Labor’s (DOL) audit results, which did not identify them as employees to whom overtime pay was owed, were erroneous. Because the district court’s holding was not based on the employees’ classification as law enforcement personnel but rather on its factual finding in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 52(c) that the DOL’s wage calculations were correct, we review it for clear error and find none. See Southern Travel Club, Inc. v. Carnival Air Lines, Inc. , 986 F.2d 125, 128 (5th Cir. 1993). Plaintiffs argue that the Sheriff’s FLSA violations should be construed as “willful,” thus entitling them to a three-year limitations period, because the violations were of a continuous nature. Plaintiffs similarly have not shown that the district court clearly erred on this issue. See Reich v. Tiller Helicopter Servs ., 8 F.3d 1018, 1036 (5th Cir. 1993). Plaintiffs also argue that the FLSA’s three-year limitations period does not apply to cases where an employee has been discharged in retaliation for filing a complaint under the FLSA, apparently inferring that the Sheriff wrongfully terminated some unnamed employees. This argument was rejected by the districtNo. 00-31263 -3- court because the plaintiffs had put forth no material evidence to substantiate allegations of retaliation. We reject it for the

same reason. The district court’s decision is AFFIRMED.
Editorial Note on Part 45
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 45 appear at 74 FR 53394, Oct. 16, 2009.

§ 45.1 Applicability. This part prescribes the requirements for— ( a ) Marking products and articles manufactured under— ( 1 ) A type certificate;
( 2 ) A production approval as defined under part 21 of this chapter; and
( 3 ) The provisions of an agreement between the United States and another country or jurisdiction for the acceptance of products and articles; and
( b ) Nationality and registration marking of aircraft registered in the United States in accordance with part 47.
[Doc. No. 2047, 29 FR 3223, Mar. 11, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 45-3, 32 FR 188, Jan. 10, 1967; Amdt. 45-26, 74 FR 53394, Oct. 16, 2009; Doc. No. FAA-2015-7396, Amdt. 45-30, 80 FR 78645, Dec. 16, 2015]
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 14.1

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

     We consent to the reference to our firm in the headnote to Item 3. Key
Information -- Selected Financial Data included in this Annual Report (Form 20-
F) of Amdocs Limited and to the incorporation by reference in the following
Registration Statements:

                               COMMISSION FILE NO.
                             Form S-8, No. 333-91847
                             Form S-8, No. 333-92705
                             Form S-8, No. 333-31506
                             Form S-8, No. 333-34104
                             Form S-8, No. 333-58454
                            Form S-8, No. 333-114077
                            Form S-8, No. 333-132968
                            Form S-8, No. 333-135320
                            Form S-8, No. 333-137617
                Form F-3 (and related Prospectus), No. 333-39278
                Form F-3 (and related Prospectus), No. 333-44994
                Form F-3 (and related Prospectus), No. 333-57036
                Form F-3 (and related Prospectus), No. 333-67572
                Form F-3 (and related Prospectus), No. 333-114079
                Form F-3 (and related Prospectus), No. 333-114344

of our reports dated November 30, 2006, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements and financial statement schedule of Amdocs Limited, Amdocs
Limited management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial
reporting of Amdocs Limited, included in this Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the
year ended September 30, 2006.

                                                           /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

New York, New York
December 12, 2006
# EUR-Lex - 31995D0059 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31995D0059

**95/59/EC: Commission Decision of 2 March 1995 approving the programme for the eradication of Aujeszky' s Disease in Austria (Only the German text is authentic) **

*
Official Journal L 055 , 11/03/1995 P. 0042 - 0042 *

COMMISSION DECISION of 2 March 1995 approving the programme for the eradication of Aujeszky's Disease in Austria (Only the German text is authentic) (95/59/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 64/432/EEC of 26 June 1964, on animal health problems affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine (1), as amended by the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden, and in particular Article 9 thereof,

Whereas an eradication programme was commenced in Austria for Aujeszky's Disease in 1986;

Whereas in accordance with Article 9 (2) of Directive 64/432/EEC the Commission has examined the programme; whereas it meets the criteria laid down in Article 9 (1) of the said Directive and can therefore be approved;

Whereas by letter dated 16 November 1994, Austria has submitted information on its eradication programme for Aujeszky's Disease;

Whereas the programme should allow Aujeszky's Disease to be eradicated from Austria in the future; whereas the situation concerning this disease in Austria shall be reviewed within two years;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The programme for the eradication of Aujeszky's Disease from Austria is hereby approved for a period of two years.

Article 2

Austria shall bring into force by 1 March 1995 the laws, regulations and administrative provisions for implementing the programme referred to in Article 1.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 1 March 1995.

Article 4

This Decision is addressed to the Republic of Austria.

Done at Brussels, 2 March 1995.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No 121, 29. 7. 1964, p. 1977/64.