alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**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 Tasker Products Corp. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
      I, Doreen J. Remmen, Chief Financial 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 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 result of operations of the Company as of and for
      the periods presented in the Report.




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




May
      15,
      2008




/s/
                Doreen J. RemmenDoreen
                J. RemmenChief
                Financial Officer(Principal
                Financial and Accounting Officer)
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Cancer Institute Clinical Trials Advisory Committee.

The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Cancer Institute Clinical Trials Advisory Committee.                    

*Date:*                         January 10, 2007.                    

*Time:*                         8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         Ethics overview for CTAC members and update on the Clinical Trials Working; Group (CTWG) Implementation Plan and role of CTAC members.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Building 31, 31 Center Drive, 6th Floor, C-Wing, Conference Room 10, Bethesda, MD 20892.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Sheila A. Prindiville, MD, Director, Coordinating Center for Clinical Trials, Office of the Director, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 6116 Executive Blvd., Suite 109, Bethesda, MD 20892. 301-451-5041.                         *prindivs@mail.nih.gov.*

Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.

In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: November 22, 2006.

David Clary,

Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 06-9480 Filed 11-30-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 16-1370

___________________________

Laurence Elena Maravilla; William Enrique Castro-Maravilla,

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioners,

v.

Jefferson B. Sessions, III, Attorney General of the United States,

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent,

____________

Petition for Review of an Order of the

 Board of Immigration Appeals

____________

 Submitted: August 11, 2017

Filed: August 16, 2017

[Unpublished]

____________

Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Salvadoran citizens Laurence Elena Maravilla and her minor son, William

Enrique Castro-Maravilla (William) petition for review of an order of the Board of

Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s

(IJ’s) decision. Petitioners challenge the denial of Maravilla’s requests for asylum

and withholding of removal, based on her membership in certain particular social
groups, and they challenge the IJ’s denial of both Maravilla’s and William’s requests

for relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).1 Petitioners contend (1) the

agency erroneously concluded that Maravilla did not show one central reason

members of a gang targeted her for extortion was because she was the mother of a

boy the gang members sought to recruit; (2) the BIA engaged in impermissible factfinding when it discussed the IJ’s findings; and (3) the agency disregarded significant

evidence when it concluded that petitionersfailed to show it was more likely than not

that a public official would consent or acquiesce to their torture. We determine that

the BIA’s discussion did not reflect impermissible fact-finding, and we conclude that

substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of relief. See Fesehaye v. Holder,

607 F.3d 523, 526 (8th Cir. 2010).

First, we conclude that Maravilla failed to establish that her membership in any

of her proposed groups was at least one central reason for the extortion she

experienced and the future harm she fears. See Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 40,

43-46 (BIA 2017) (interpreting “one central reason” test for nexus in asylum); cf.

Cambara-Cambara v. Lynch, 837 F.3d 822, 826 (8th Cir. 2016) (affirming denial

based on lack of nexus between harm and status as family members). Because

Maravilla did not meet her burden of proof for asylum, she necessarily could not

satisfywithholding ofremoval’s higher standard. SeeNgugi v. Lynch, 826 F.3d 1132,

1139 (8th Cir. 2016). Finally, as to petitioners’ CAT claim, we agree there was

insufficient evidence that the government would torture them or acquiesce in any

torture. See Cambara-Cambara, 837 F.3d at 826-27. The petition for review is

denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

1Petitioners’ brief makes no arguments regarding William’s asylum and

withholding-of removal claims; thus, they are abandoned. See Chay-Velasquez v.

Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir. 2004).

-2-
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1536 

To authorize the Secretary of Defense to establish a fellowship program 

regarding neuroscience. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 16, 2009 

Mr. SESTAK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To authorize the Secretary of Defense to establish a 

fellowship program regarding neuroscience. 

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

3 SECTION 1. VISITING NIH SENIOR NEUROSCIENCE FEL4 LOWSHIP PROGRAM. 

5 (a) AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH.—The Secretary of 

6 Defense may establish a program to be known as the Vis7 iting NIH Senior Neuroscience Fellowship Program at— 

8 (1) the Defense Advanced Research Projects 

9 Agency; and 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1536 IH

1 (2) the Defense Center of Excellence for Psy2 chological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury. 

3 (b) ACTIVITIES OF THE PROGRAM.—In establishing 

4 the Visiting NIH Senior Neuroscience Fellowship Pro5 gram under subsection (a), the Secretary shall require the 

6 program to— 

7 (1) provide a partnership between the National 

8 Institutes of Health and the Defense Advanced Re9 search Projects Agency to enable identification and 

10 funding of the broadest range of innovative, highest 

11 quality clinical and experimental neuroscience stud12 ies for the benefit of members of the Armed Forces; 

13 (2) provide a partnership between the National 

14 Institutes of Health and the Defense Center of Ex15 cellence for Psychological Health and Traumatic 

16 Brain Injury that will enable identification and 

17 funding of clinical and experimental neuroscience 

18 studies for the benefit of members of the Armed 

19 Forces; 

20 (3) use the results of the studies described in 

21 paragraph (1) and (2) to enhance the mission of the 

22 National Institutes of Health for the benefit of the 

23 public; and 

24 (4) provide a military and civilian collaborative 

25 environment for neuroscience-based medical probVerDate Nov 24 2008 04:59 Mar 17, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1536.IH H1536

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
3 

•HR 1536 IH

1 lem-solving in critical areas affecting both military 

2 and civilian life, particularly post-traumatic stress 

3 disorder. 

Æ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
NO. 07-06-0398-CR NO. 07-06-0399-CR IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL B DECEMBER 12 , 2006

______________________________ THERESE ANN LADD, Appellant

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

_________________________________ FROM THE 2 51st DIS TRICT CO URT OF RAND ALL COUNT Y; NOS. 17,294-C and 18,18 9-C; HON. PATRICK A. PIRTLE, PRESIDING

_______________________________ ON ABATEMENT AND REMAND

_______________________________ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Appellant

appeals from her convictions. On Novembe r 21, 2006, the clerk’s record in each case was filed. The repor ter’s reco rds wer

e due on November 20, 2006. No recordsor extensi on motions we re filed by the court repor ter. On November 27, 2006, this courtdirected the court reporter by letter “to advise the C ourt of the status of the repo rter’s
rec ord on or before Thursday , December 07, 200 6." To date, no resp onse has bee n received by the cour

t.2

Acco rdin gly, we abate this appeal and remand thecause to the 251st District Court of Potter County

(trial court) for fur

ther proce edings. Upon remand, the trial court shall immediately cause notice of a h earing to be given and, thereafter, condu ct a hearing to determ ine the followin g: 1. why the reporter’srecord in e ach case has not been filed, 2. when the reporter’s records can reasonably be filed in a manner that does not f urth er de lay the p rosecution of thes e appeals or hav e the practical effect of depriving the appellant of th eir right to appeal, and, 3. whether

an alternate or

substitute r

eporter should or can be appoin ted to complete the r

ecords in a t imely manner. The trial cour

t shall caus e the hearing to be transcrib ed. So too shall it 1) exe cute findin gs of fa ct and co nclusio ns of la w addressin g t he fo regoing issues, 2) cause to be developed a supplemental clerk’s record in each case co ntaining its find ing s of fact and conclusionsof law

and all order

s it may i ssue as a res ult of its hearingin this matter , and 3) cause tobe developed a reporter’s record in each case t ranscribi ng the evi dence and argumentspresented at the af orementioned hea ring, if any. A ddit iona lly, the district court shall then file the suppl emental records and reporter’ s records t ranscribi ng the hearin g with the clerk of this court on or before Jan uary 11, 2007. Should furth er tim e be neede d by the trial cour

t to perform these tasks, then same must be requeste d b efore January 11, 2007. It is so or

dered. Per Curiam Do not publish

.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7140

RODERICK L. HAYES,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

THOMAS R. CORCORAN, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL

OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA97-3734-PJM)

Submitted: February 11, 1999 Decided: March 4, 1999

Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roderick L. Hayes, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Annabelle Louise Lisic, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Roderick L. Hayes seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the

reasoning of the district court. See Hayes v. Corcoran, No. CA-97-

3734-PJM (D. Md. June 4, 1998). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Joseph F.
McGuire, Chief Financial Officer of FNDS3000 Corp, (the Company), hereby 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:



| | (i) | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended August 31, 2009 (the Annual Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | the information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | ---- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/ Joseph F. McGuireName:

Joseph F. McGuireTitle:

Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)Date:

November 25, 2009




70
Exhibit 32.1








CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 0F 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Art Design, Inc.(the Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended herein as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I. Kathy Sheehan, Chief Executive and 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 fully presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations or the Company.





Dated:April 13, 2011








By:
/s/Kathy SheehanKathy Sheehan

Chief Executive Officer

Chief Financial Officer
#### Julian Benedict, Respondent, *v.*Robert S. Smith, Appellant.

Reported below, 130 App. Div. —.

(Argued February 8, 1909;

decided February 16, 1909.)

Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered January 13,1909, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action for money had and received.

The motion was made upon the ground that the action was in reality one to recover for services, and, therefore, the affirmance by the Appellate Division being unanimous, unappealable to the Court of Appeals.

*Robert L. Stanton*for motion.

*Philip S. Hill*opposed.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.
The State of TexasAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 7, 2014

No. 04-13-00750-CR

Larry CASTRO,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR0307A

Honorable Melisa Skinner, Judge Presiding

ORDER

A supplemental record containing the trial court’s order appointing new appellate counsel 

has been filed. We therefore reinstate the appeal on the docket of this court. The record is 

complete. We order appellant’s brief due March 10, 2014. 

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 7th day of February, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 19-5117 September Term, 2019

FILED ON: JUNE 12, 2020

LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD, ET AL.,

APPELLANTS

v.

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION,

APPELLEE

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 1:15-cv-01397)

Before: PILLARD and KATSAS, Circuit Judges, and RANDOLPH, Senior Circuit Judge

J U D G M E N T

This cause came on to be heard on the record on appeal from the United States District

Court for the District of Columbia and was argued by counsel. On consideration thereof, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the District Court’s grant of summary judgment to

the Commission be affirmed, in accordance with the opinion of the court filed herein this date.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk

BY: /s/

Daniel J. Reidy

Deputy Clerk

Date: June 12, 2020

Opinion for the court filed by Senior Circuit Judge Randolph.

USCA Case #19-5117 Document #1846950 Filed: 06/12/2020 Page 1 of 1
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

It is hereby agreed that Lain International will make available all Spanish
language, Spanish dubbed and Spanish sub-titled films for which it has Internet
distribution rights to Kanakaris Communications, Inc. They will be provided as
requested in masters suitable for Internet encoding.

Kanakaris Communications, Inc. will create a KKRS web channel devoted
exclusively to these titles. They will be made available utilizing Microsoft
Windows Media Technology 4 for full-screen size viewing at a variety of access
speeds. Kanakaris will endeavor to solicit advertising, subscription fees and
pay-per-view fees for portions of this content. Some content will be free (ad
supported), some will be available only to subscribers, and a limited amount
will be available as pay-per-view to broadband users.

Kanakaris will maintain web visit statistics, accounting, and will pay Lain
International its royalties on at least a quarterly basis. Kanakaris will pay
Lain 50% of the gross Kanakaris share of advertising, subscription and
pay-per-view fees for the channel devoted to Lain International provided films,
minus 50% of encoding, bandwidth and advertising charges related directly to the
channel (this amount "?" Lain International will put in advertisements on t.v.
in USA and Latin America).

A minimum of two URL's will be pointed to the aforementioned channel:
www.CineManiaNetwork.com (owned by Lain International) and CinemaPop.com (owned
by Kanakaris). In addition, the site will be a www.KKRS.net web channel.

Lain International will make a minimum of 20 film masters available to Kanakaris
within fourteen days.

Agreed,


/s/ Alex Kanakaris                                  /s/ Julio Neri
Alex Kanakaris                                      Julio Neri
CEO                                                 President
Kanakaris Communications, Inc.                      Lain International

date: November 9, 1999                              date:


Approval of portion of press release:

The following content will be contained in an initial press release. There may
be an additional headline and the wording will be punched up.

Kanakaris Communications, Inc. is creating the first Spanish language motion
picture website featuring full screen, broadcast quality Internet delivery. Lain
International, a leading studio devoted to the purchase and sale of motion
pictures for a Latin American audience, has signed an agreement with Kanakaris
Communications, Inc. to supply motion picture content for the site. Lain is
initially making available over 200 titles to Kanakaris. The site will be called
CinemaPop.com and CineManiaNetwork.com. Kanakaris and Lain will share potential
revenue from advertising, subscription fees and pay-per-view fees.
* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 18, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-50821 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus FREDDY CRUZ-DURAN, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. DR-03-CR-278-1-AML

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Freddy Cruz-Duran appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Cruz-Duran contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is an unconstitutional sentencing provision. He argues that his sentence exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).No. 03-50821 -2-
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Cruz-Duran acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.