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

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, I, Barry Bennett, Chief Executive Officer of Advanced ID Corporation
(the "Company"), hereby certify, that to the best of my knowledge, the Annual
report on Form 10-KSB/A of the Company for the period ended December 31, 2004
(the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.

Date: June 7, 2005

/s/Barry I. Bennett
----------------------------------------
Barry I. Bennett, Chief Executive Officer


                                       42
FORM 29. Confidential Mediator Report Form 29 (p. 1) 

March 2021

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

CONFIDENTIAL MEDIATOR REPORT

Case Number:

Short Case Caption:

1. Mediator’s Name and Contact Information:

2. Was a settlement agreement reached?

Yes No Full Partial

3. Date of First Contact with the Parties:

4. Date Settlement Agreement Signed/Mediation Terminated:

5. Total Mediator Time:

6. Who Participated:

Lawyers Only

Lawyers and Clients

Nonparties

7. How did you conduct the mediation?

Face-to-Face Meetings

Telephone/Video Conferences 

Written Submissions

Other Contacts/Conferences

8. If the case was settled, please describe any elements in the settlement (e.g.,

an apology) that could not have been obtained through judicial disposition.
FORM 29. Confidential Mediator Report Form 29 (p. 2) 

March 2021

9. On a separate sheet of paper, please evaluate the mediation. For example,

were the techniques you used effective? Did the mediation present any

unusual problems? If the case settled, what did you do to achieve that result?

In hindsight, would you do anything differently? How can the mediation

program be improved?

10.Did you have expertise in the legal issues involved in the case?

Yes No

11.What impact, if any, did this have on the mediation?

12.Was the Circuit Mediation Office responsive/supportive?

Yes No

13.Will you recommend others join the program as volunteer mediators?

Yes No

14.Will you participate in the mediation program again?

Yes No

15.Comments/suggestions, please:

Date: _________________ Signature:

Name: 

Thank you for your participation in the program. Please send the completed form to

Circuit Mediation Administrator

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

717 Madison Place, NW

Washington, DC 20439
§ 64.607 Furnishing related customer premises equipment. ( a ) Any communications common carrier may provide, under tariff, customer premises equipment (other than hearing aid compatible telephones as defined in part 68 of this chapter, needed by persons with hearing, speech, vision or mobility disabilities. Such equipment may be provided to persons with those disabilities or to associations or institutions who require such equipment regularly to communicate with persons with disabilities. Examples of such equipment include, but are not limited to, artificial larynxes, bone conductor receivers and TTs.
( b ) Any carrier which provides telecommunications devices for persons with hearing and/or speech disabilities, whether or not pursuant to tariff, shall respond to any inquiry concerning: ( 1 ) The availability (including general price levels) of TTs using ASCII, Baudot, or both formats; and
( 2 ) The compatibility of any TT with other such devices and computers.
[56 FR 36731, Aug. 1, 1991, as amended at 72 FR 43560, Aug. 6, 2007; 73 FR 21252, Apr. 21, 2008. Redesignated at 73 FR 21259, Apr. 21, 2008; 89 FR 20133, Mar. 21, 2024]
§ 0.311 Authority delegated. The Chief, Enforcement Bureau, is delegated authority to perform all functions of the Bureau, described in § 0.111, provided that: ( a ) The following matters shall be referred to the Commission en banc for disposition: ( 1 ) Notices of proposed rulemaking and of inquiry and final orders in such proceedings.
( 2 ) Applications for review of actions taken pursuant to delegated authority, except that the Chief of the Enforcement Bureau may dismiss any such application that does not contain any statement required under § 1.115(a) or (b) of this chapter, or does not comply with the filing requirements of § 1.115(d) or (f) of this chapter.
( 3 ) Matters that present novel questions of law, fact or policy that cannot be resolved under existing precedents and guidelines.
( 4 ) Forfeiture notices and forfeiture orders if the amount is more than $100,000 in the case of common carriers or more than $25,000 in the case of all other persons or entities.
( 5 ) Orders concluding an investigation under section 208(b) of the Communications Act and orders addressing petitions for reconsideration of such orders.
( 6 ) Release of information pursuant to section 220(f) of the Communications Act, except for release of such information to a state public utility commission or in response to a Freedom of Information Act Request.
( b ) Action on complaints regarding compliance with section 705(a) of the Communications Act shall be coordinated with the Office of General Counsel.
[64 FR 60721, Nov. 8, 1999, as amended at 67 FR 13221, Mar. 21, 2002; 71 FR 69036, Nov. 29, 2006; 86 FR 12547, Mar. 4, 2021]
§ 54.420 Low income program audits. ( a ) *Independent audit requirements for eligible telecommunications carriers.* Eligible telecommunications carriers identified by USAC must obtain a third-party biennial audit of their compliance with the rules in this subpart. Such engagements shall be agreed upon performance attestations to assess the company's overall compliance with the rules in this subpart and the company's internal controls regarding the regulatory requirements in this subpart. ( 1 ) Eligible telecommunications carriers will be selected for audit based on risk-based criteria developed by USAC and approved by the Office of Managing Director and the Wireline Competition Bureau.
( 2 ) The initial audit must be completed one year after the Commission issues a standardized audit plan outlining the scope of the engagement and the extent of compliance testing to be performed by third-party auditors and shall be conducted every two years thereafter, unless directed otherwise by the Commission. The following minimum requirements shall apply: ( i ) The audit must be conducted by a licensed certified public accounting firm that is independent of the carrier.
( ii ) The engagement shall be conducted consistent with government accounting standards (GAGAS).
( 3 ) The certified public accounting firm shall submit to the Commission any rule interpretations necessary to complete the biennial audit, and the Administrator shall notify all firms subject to the biennial audit requirement of such requests. The audit issue will be noted, but not held as a negative finding, in future audit reports for all carriers subject to this requirement unless and until guidance has been provided by the Commission.
( 4 ) Within 60 days after completion of the audit work, but prior to finalization of the report, the third party auditor shall submit a draft of the audit report to the Commission and the Administrator, who shall be deemed authorized users of such reports. Finalized audit reports must be provided to the Commission, the Administrator, and relevant states and Tribal governments within 30 days of the issuance of the final audit report. The reports will not be considered or deemed confidential.
( 5 ) *Delegated authority.* The Wireline Competition Bureau and the Office of Managing Director have delegated authority to perform the functions specified in paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) of this section.
( b ) *Audit requirements for new eligible telecommunications carriers.* After a company is designated for the first time in any state or territory, the Administrator will audit that new eligible telecommunications carrier to assess its overall compliance with the rules in this subpart and the company's internal controls regarding these regulatory requirements. This audit should be conducted within the carrier's first twelve months of seeking federal low-income Universal Service Fund support, unless otherwise determined by the Office of Managing Director.
[77 FR 12974, Mar. 2, 2012, as amended at 77 FR 38534, June 28, 2012; 81 FR 33094, May 24, 2016; 84 FR 71329, Dec. 27, 2019]
Exhibit 24
 POWER OF ATTORNEY
   st
 Name
    
    Title
    
    SignatureJosh Bekenstein
    
    Director
    
    /s/ Josh BeckensteinMichael M. Calbert
    
    Director
    
    /s/ Michael M. CalbertMichael D. Fascitelli
    
    Director
    
    /s/ Michael D. FascitelliMatthew S. Levin
    
    Director
    
    /s/ Matthew S. LevinSanjay Morey
    
    Director
    
    /s/ Sanjay MoreyJohn Pfeffer
    
    Director
    
    /s/ John PfefferSteven Roth
    
    Director
    
    /s/ Steven RothWendy Silverstein
    
    Director
    
    /s/ Wendy SilversteinMichael Ward
    
    Director
    
    /s/ Michael Ward
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RAMON ALBERTO MIRAMONTESAVILA, AKA Francisco Luna Lopez, AKA 

Martin Lopez-Aros, AKA Francisco 

Martinez-Lopez, AKA Franciso Luna 

Martinez-Lopez, AKA Ramon Miramontes, 

AKA Ramon Alberto Miramontes, AKA 

Ramon Miramontes-Avila, AKA Ramon 

Miramontes-Ceballos, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 18-73153 

Agency No. A092-438-104 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 18, 2019**

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

Ramon Alberto Miramontes-Avila, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions 

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from 

* 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 21 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-73153 

an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for deferral of removal 

under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 

U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. 

Lopez v. Sessions, 901 F.3d 1071, 1074 (9th Cir. 2018). We deny the petition for 

review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that MiramontesAvila failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the 

consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Andrade v. 

Lynch, 798 F.3d 1242, 1245 (9th Cir. 2015) (substantial evidence supported denial 

of deferral of removal under CAT where petitioner failed to show more likely than 

not he would be subjected to torture upon return); Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 

F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (generalized evidence of violence and crime in 

Mexico not particular to petitioners was insufficient to establish CAT relief).

Miramontes-Avila’s contention that the immigration judge lacked 

jurisdiction over his proceedings is foreclosed by Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 

1158, 1160-62 (9th Cir. 2019) (notice to appear need not include time and date of 

hearing to vest jurisdiction in the immigration court).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
1 The Honorable Bobby E. Shepherd, United States Magistrate Judge for the

Western District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 99-3655WA

_____________ Charles Henry Johnson, * * Appellant, * On Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Western District of Arkansas. * William H. Henderson, Postmaster * [To Be Published] General, United States Postal Service, * * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: November 29, 2000 Filed: December 8, 2000

___________ Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, HANSEN, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
Charles Johnson appeals the District Court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his Age Discrimination in Employment Act and Title VII lawsuit in which he alleged that the United States Postal Service (USPS) did not hire him on account of-2-

age and race discrimination. The Court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment because Johnson had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies: he initially submitted his Equal Employment Opportunity Complaint of Discrimination in the Postal Service to the wrong office, then submitted it to the correct office after the applicable time limit had run.
We agree with the District Court that the time for filing the complaint began whenJohnson received the complaint form and the filing instructions, not when he retainedcounsel and furnished the materials to him. See Irwinv. Department of Veterans Affairs , 498 U.S. 89, 92 (1990) (time for filing Title VII suit runs from claimant’s or claimant’s attorney’s receipt of Equal Employment Opportunity Commissionletter, whichever comes first). We also agree with the Court that the materials unambiguously informed Plaintiff of the correct office with which to file the complaint and of the deadline for filing, and that the erroneous filing was his or his attorney’s--not USPS’s--fault, so that equitable tolling does not apply. See id. (no equitable tolling where late filing is result of attorney’s ordinary neglect); Shempert v. Harwick Chem. Corp. , 151 F.3d 793, 798 (8th Cir. 1998) (no equitable tolling where language of EEOC letter was not misleading and plaintiff had benefit of counsel), cert. denied , 525 U.S. 1139 (1999); Harris v. Administrator, Veterans Admin. , 924 F.2d 148, 149-150 (8th Cir. 1991) (plaintiff initially filed administrative appeal with wrong agency, which returned it to him, and he then filed it late with correct agency; it was thus properly dismissed, and equity did not require tolling). Finally, we decline to consider Plaintiff’s argument, raised for the first time on appeal, regarding the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994. See Tarsney v. O’Keefe , 225 F.3d 929, 939 (8th Cir. 2000) (this Court generally will not consider argument raised for first time on appeal).-3-

Accordingly, we affirm. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>   This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
           from the Balance Sheet and Statement of Operations included in
           the Company's Form 10-K for the year ended January 1, 2000 and
           is qualified in its entirety by reference to such Financial
           Statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                         <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           Jan-01-2000
<PERIOD-START>                              Jan-03-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                Jan-01-2000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               12-MOS
<CASH>                                          47,875
<SECURITIES>                                    22,582
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,600
<ALLOWANCES>                                       683
<INVENTORY>                                      6,960
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                92,053
<PP&E>                                          11,757
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,391
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 110,039
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,935
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                     102,873
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   110,039
<SALES>                                         44,219
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                48,724
<CGS>                                           18,833
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,833
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                25,242
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,774
<INCOME-TAX>                                       231
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,543
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,543
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.59
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.54


</TABLE>
§ 51.1 Basis and purpose. ( a ) *Basis.* These rules are issued pursuant to the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.
( b ) *Purpose.* The purpose of these rules is to implement sections 251 and 252 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 251 and 252.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1
 
                            STERLING COMMERCE, INC.
 
                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                  (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE INFORMATION)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                     YEAR ENDED    YEAR ENDED
                                                    SEPTEMBER 30, SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                        1997          1996
                                                    ------------- -------------
<S>                                                 <C>           <C>
Primary:
Average shares outstanding........................      83,561        74,233
Net effect of dilutive stock options-based on the
 treasury stock method using average market
 price............................................       2,421         1,243
Total.............................................      85,983        75,475
                                                       =======       =======
Net income........................................     $55,444       $58,392
                                                       =======       =======
Per share amount..................................     $   .64       $   .77
                                                       =======       =======
Fully diluted:
Average shares outstanding........................      83,561        74,233
Net effect of dilutive stock options-based on the
 treasury stock method using the higher of average
 or year-end market price.........................       3,239         1,243
                                                       -------       -------
Total.............................................      86,800        75,475
                                                       =======       =======
Net income........................................     $55,444       $58,392
                                                       =======       =======
Per share amount..................................     $   .64       $   .77
                                                       =======       =======
</TABLE>
§ 54.606 Calculating support. ( a ) The amount of universal service support provided for an eligible service to be funded from the Telecommunications program shall be the difference, if any, between the urban rate and the rural rate charged for the services, as defined in this section. In addition, all reasonable charges that are incurred by taking such services, such as state and federal taxes, shall be eligible for universal service support. Charges for termination liability, penalty surcharges, and other charges not included in the cost of taking such service shall not be covered by the universal service support mechanisms.
( b ) The universal service support mechanisms shall provide support for intrastate telecommunications services, as set forth in § 54.101(a), provided to rural health care providers as well as interstate telecommunications services.
( c ) *Mobile rural health care providers* — ( 1 ) *Calculation of support.* The support amount allowed under the Telecommunications Program for satellite services provided to mobile rural health care providers is calculated by comparing the rate for the satellite service to the rate for an urban wireline service with a similar bandwidth. Support for satellite services shall not be capped at an amount of a functionally similar wireline alternative. Where the mobile rural health care provider provides service in more than one state, the calculation shall be based on the urban areas in each state, proportional to the number of locations served in each state.
( 2 ) *Documentation of support.* ( i ) Mobile rural health care providers shall provide to the Administrator documentation of the price of bandwidth equivalent wireline services in the urban area in the state or states where the service is provided. Mobile rural health care providers shall provide to the Administrator the number of sites the mobile health care provider will serve during the funding year.
( ii ) Where a mobile rural health care provider serves less than eight different sites per year, the mobile rural health care provider shall provide to the Administrator documentation of the price of bandwidth equivalent wireline services. In such case, the Administrator shall determine on a case-by-case basis whether the telecommunications service selected by the mobile rural health care provider is the most cost-effective option. Where a mobile rural health care provider seeks a more expensive satellite-based service when a less expensive wireline alternative is most cost-effective, the mobile rural health care provider shall be responsible for the additional cost.
24 September 2015

188A15

#### Jeffrey Huggins, Employee v. Marlatex Corporation, Employer, and New Hampshire Insurance, Carrier

1. Pit’s *Pro Se*Notice of Appeal Based upon a Constitutional Question (COA14-1232)

1.-

2. Defs’ Motion to Dismiss Appeal

2. Allowed