alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.4





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 Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Affiliated Managers Group, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2018 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Jay C. Horgen, President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:





|    |                                                                                                                                                  
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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: April 1, 2019





/s/ JAY C. HORGENJay C. HorgenPresident, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
#### Martin v. City of Williamsburg.

(Decided December 1, 1916.)

Appeal from Whitley Circuit Court.

Appeal and Error — Prejudicial Error — Reversal.—A judgment will not be reversed for errors which are not prejudicial to appellant’s substantial rights.

ROSE & POPE for appellant.

H. C. GILLIS and T. E. MAHAN for appellee.

Opinion op the Court by

William Rogers Clay, Commissioner

Affirming.

Plaintiff,' Mrs. Ellen Martin, brought this suit against the City of Williamsburg to recover damages for injury to her property, alleged to have been caused by the negligent acts of the defendant. A trial before a jury resulted in a verdict and judgment for the city. Plaintiff appeals.

Plaintiff asked for damages on three grounds: (1) The negligent grading of the streets on the north and east sides of her residence so as to increase and change the natural flow and amount of water which fell from adjacent and surrounding territory and cause same to overflow her premises; (2) the construction of a fill on the north side of her residence and the erection of a stone wall so close to her property as to entirely cut off the use of a wagon road, the only entrance into her premises; and, (3) the deposit in front of her house of large quantities of filth, garbage, etc., which caused offensive odors and interfered with the comfortable enjoyment of her home.

A reversal is asked because of alleged errors in the instructions and the rejection of competent evidence. We deem it unnecessary to enter into a discussion of the errors relied on. Not only is plaintiff’s evidence of damage unsatisfactory and unconvincing, but the over*533whelming' weight of the evidence is to the effect that plaintiff’s property was not injured by any of the negligent acts complained of. Indeed, it is difficult to see how the jury which heard the case and viewed the premises could have returned any other verdict. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the errors relied on could not have been prejudicial to appellant’s substantial rights and are not sufficient, therefore, to authorize a reversal.

Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit 32

                            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 amended Quarterly Report of Anaren,  Inc. (the "Company")
on Form  10-Q/A  for the  quarter  ended  December  31,  2006 as filed  with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  I,
Lawrence A. Sala, President and Chief Executive 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 to the best of my 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
Company.

/s/ Lawrence A. Sala
--------------------
Lawrence A. Sala
President and Chief Executive Officer

------------------------------

Date:  October 31, 2007

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Anaren,  Inc. and will be retained by Anaren,  Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


                                       40
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 32

                            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 amended Quarterly Report of Anaren,  Inc. (the "Company")
on Form  10-Q/A  for the  quarter  ended  December  31,  2006 as filed  with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Joseph
E. Porcello,  Vice  President of Finance and Treasurer 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 to the best of my 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
Company.

/s/ Joseph E. Porcello
----------------------
Joseph E. Porcello
Sr. Vice President of Finance and Treasurer

------------------------------

Date:  October 31, 2007

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Anaren,  Inc. and will be retained by Anaren,  Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

                                       41
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 of Wyeth (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 9, 2004 (the Report), I, Kenneth J. Martin,
Chief Financial 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 results of operations of the Company.



Dated: November 9, 2004

                             By /s/           Kenneth J. Martin
                                --------------------------------------------
                                              Kenneth J. Martin
                                           Executive Vice President
                                          and Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 127 (Friday, June 30, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 40606]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16540]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration


Amendment to Certification of Central Filing System--Oklahoma

    The Statewide central filing system of Oklahoma has been previously 
certified, pursuant to Section 1324 of the Food Security Act of 1985, 
on the basis of information submitted by the Oklahoma Secretary of 
State, for farm products produced in that State (52 FR 49056, December 
29, 1987).
    The certification is hereby amended on the basis of information 
submitted in a May 23, 2000 letter by Anita Charlson, Supervisor, 
Central Filing System for Agriculture Liens, for additional farm 
products used or produced in farming operations, or a product of such 
crop or livestock in its unmanufactured state that is in the possession 
of a person engaged in farming operations in that State as follows: 
echinacea, broccoli, eggplant.
    This is issued pursuant to authority delegated by the Secretary of 
Agriculture.

    Authority: Sec. 1324(c)(2), Pub. L. 99-198, 99 Stat. 1535, 7 
U.S.C. 1631(c)(2); 7 CFR 2.22(a)(3)(v), 2.81(a)(5), 55 FR 22795.

    Dated: June 23, 2000.
John Stencel,
Acting Deputy Administrator, Packers and Stockyards Programs.
[FR Doc. 00-16540 Filed 6-29-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-EN-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF AMERICAN SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING,
INC. FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 27, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-29-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-27-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           2,244
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,666
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      4,063
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,324
<PP&E>                                           1,184
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,669
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  14,618
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,499
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,034
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,599
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    14,618
<SALES>                                         13,384
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,384
<CGS>                                            8,937
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,403
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    85
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   3
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    896
<INCOME-TAX>                                        39
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                857
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       857
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.18
        

</TABLE>
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T DEC 17, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [ D O N O T P U B L I S H ]

I N T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C I R C U I T

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ N o

. 0 8

- 1 2 9 5 7 N o n - A r g u m e n t C a l e n d a r

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ D

. C

. D o c k e t N o

. 0 8

- 0 0 0 0 5

- C R

- 3

- M C R

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A ,

P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e ,

v e r s u s

F R E D I S T O R R E S , a

. k

. a

. W a l d e y u d i M a r t i n e z - R o m a n ,
D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A p p e a l f r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e N o r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f F l o r i d a

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ( D e c e m b e r 1 7 , 2 0 0 8 )

B e f o r e H U L L , M A R C U S a n d F A Y , C i r c u i t J u d g e s

.
P E R C U R I A M :
C h e t K a u f

m a n , a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l f o r F r e d i s T o r r e s , h a s f

i l e d a m o t i o n t ow i t h d r a w o n a p p e a l , s u p p o r t e d b y a b r i e f p r e p a r e d p u r s u a n t t o A n d e r s v
.

C a l i f o r n i a , 3 8 6 U

. S

. 7 3 8 , 8 7 S

. C t

. 1 3 9 6 , 1 8 L

. E d

. 2 d 4 9 3 ( 1 9 6 7 )

. O u r i n d e p e n d e n t

r e v i e w o f t h e e n t i r e r e c o r d r e v e a l s t h a t c o u n s e l ’ s a s s e s s m e n t o f t h e r e l a t i v e m e r i t o f

t h e a p p e a l i s c o r r e c t

. B e c a u s e i n d e p e n d e n t r e v i e w o f t h e e n t i r e r e c o r d r e v e a l s n o

a r g u a b l y m e r i t o r i o u s i s s u e s , c o u n s e l ’ s m o t i o n t o w i t h d r a w i s G R A N T E D , a n d

T o r r e s ’ s c o n v i c t i o n a n d s e n t e n c e a r e A F F I R M E D

.

2
1

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EDOFRE DURIEL PARRA-SALAS, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III,

United States Attorney General,

Respondent. 

No. 16-70226

Agency No. A098-386-006

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted October 18, 2017

 San Francisco, California

Before: IKUTA and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and MOLLOY,

** District 

Judge.

Edofre Duriel Parra-Salas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review 

of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the decision of an 

Immigration Judge (IJ) denying Parra’s applications for withholding of removal 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The Honorable Donald W. Molloy, United States District Judge for the 

District of Montana, sitting by designation.

FILED

OCT 25 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) and protection under the Convention Against Torture

(CAT), 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16-1208.18. Parra also petitions for review of the BIA’s 

denial of his motion to remand because of alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. 

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.

1. Parra’s briefing on appeal raises no arguments in support of his CAT 

claim. He therefore has waived this claim. See United States v. Kama, 394 F.3d 1236, 

1238 (9th Cir. 2005).

2. An applicant for withholding of removal must show that either the 

government or an entity that the government is unwilling or unable to control is the 

source of his persecution. See Knezevic v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th Cir. 

2004). The BIA affirmed the IJ’s finding that Parra did not establish that the Mexican 

government was unwilling or unable to protect him from persecution by drug cartel 

members. Parra waived review of this claim by failing to argue it in his opening 

brief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996). Even 

assuming that the issue was not waived, Parra has not met his burden of 

demonstrating that the decision was not supported by substantial evidence.

3. The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Parra’s motion to 

remand. The BIA did not unreasonably conclude that Parra failed to make the prima 

facie showing of “legitimate and substantial” ineffective assistance, Castillo-Perez 

v. INS, 212 F.3d 518, 526 (9th Cir. 2000), needed to excuse failure to comply with 
3

the procedural requirements of Matter of Lozada, 19 I&N Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), 

aff’d, 857 F.2d 10 (1st Cir. 1988). Moreover, the evidence that Parra sought to 

introduce was not reasonably likely to affect the outcome of his withholding claim.1

See Matter of Coehlo, 20 I&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992).

PETITION DENIED.

 1 We GRANT Parra’s request to submit a transcript of argument (Dkt. 

42, 44).
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19I0292. WILLIAM BOYCE CLEARY v. THE STATE.

William Boyce Cleary filed a pro se demand for speedy trial. Because Cleary

is represented below, the trial court struck his pro se pleading. Cleary has filed a pro

se application for interlocutory appeal from this ruling.

1

“A criminal defendant in Georgia does not have the right to represent himself

and also be represented by an attorney, and pro se filings by represented parties are

therefore unauthorized and without effect.” Tolbert v. Toole, 296 Ga. 357, 363 (3)

(767 SE2d 24) (2014) (citations and punctuation omitted). When a criminal defendant

submits a pro se filing while still represented by counsel, the filing is a legal nullity

and will be dismissed by an appellate court. White v. State, 302 Ga. 315, 319 (2) (806

SE2d 489) (2017). Accordingly, the application is hereby DISMISSED.2

1 Cleary filed his application in the Supreme Court, which transferred the

matter to this Court.

2 We also note that Cleary’s failure to comply with the interlocutory appeal

procedure in OCGA § 5-6-34 (b) deprives this Court of jurisdiction.

August 12, 2019
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

08/12/2019
#### § 105-64.303 How do I appeal a denial to access a record?

If you are denied access to a record in whole or in part, you may file an administrative appeal within 30 days of the denial. The appeal should be in writing and addressed to: GSA Privacy Act Officer (CIB), General Services Administration, 1800 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20405. Mark both the envelope and the appeal letter “Privacy Act Appeal”.
603 P.2d 992

#### The STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. David VARGAS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13098.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

Dec. 3, 1979.

*659Klaus Wiebe, Ada County Public Defender and Alan E. Trimming, Boise, for defendant-appellant.

David H. Leroy, Atty. Gen., Lynn E. Thomas and Michael B. Kennedy, Deputy Attys. Gen., Boise, for plaintiff-respondent.

Before DONALDSON, C. J., SHEPARD and BAKES, JJ., and THOMAS and MAYNARD, JJ., Pro Tem.

PER CURIAM.

On April 13, 1978, defendant-appellant Vargas and Stephen Anderson engaged in a heated verbal exchange at an establishment in Boise, Idaho. Appellant then left the establishment, followed by Anderson. Outside, a confrontation took place which caused appellant to believe the two were about to “get it on.” At that point, appellant obtained a pistol from a vehicle and, while advancing toward Anderson, asked if he were “ready to get into it.” Anderson then pushed a witness, Barbara Price, back through the door of the bar, stating, “The guy’s got a gun. Go in and call the police.” Appellant then entered a car driven by another. Anderson testified that as it accelerated from the parking lot, he saw appellant pointing a pistol from the passenger window toward him in such *a*manner that he thought he was “dead for sure.” Anderson testified he dived to the ground and from that position heard a shot. Two other witnesses testified they heard the shot also. Shortly thereafter, the police stopped appellant and his companion in a vehicle matching the description of that in which they left the bar. Beneath the passenger seat were a .22 caliber automatic pistol and a .38 caliber revolver. Both weapons were loaded.

Appellant was tried on the charge of assault with a deadly weapon with the use of a firearm. At the close of the state’s case, appellant moved for judgment of acquittal pursuant to I.C.R. 29(a). The motion was denied, and appellant was convicted. He was sentenced to two years on the assault charge and three years for use of a firearm in the commission of a felony, the sentences to run consecutively. The entire sentence was commuted to nine months in the Ada County jail.

Appellant appeals from his conviction and sentence, urging the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal. The contention is without merit. A motion for judgment of acquittal must be granted only when there is no evidence upon which to base a verdict of guilt. Therefore, such directed verdicts are limited to cases involving total lack of inculpatory evidence. *State v. O’Bryan,*96 Idaho 548, 531 P.2d 1193 (1975). Contrary to appellant’s assertion, there is abundant competent and substantial evidence in the record to support a conviction on the offenses charged. The trial court did not err in denying the motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the state’s case.
# Comments on: 23-2352: BEASLEY v. DVA [ORDER], Nonprecedential