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

CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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, the undersigned officer of Intelsat Corporation (the Company) hereby
certifies that to such officers knowledge, the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended September 30, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                       |  |  |  |                                          
|---------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------
|Date: November 9, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ MICHAEL MCDONNELL                    
|                       |  |  |  | Michael McDonnell Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

URMI RAHMAN, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 18-71448 

Agency No. A075-708-640 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 9, 2020**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Urmi Rahman, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions for review of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen

removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review 

for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Bonilla v. Lynch, 

840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition 

* 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 16 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-71448 

for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Rahman’s motion to reopen.

As to her fear of harm based on her family and her father’s political activities, 

Rahman has not established material changed country conditions in Bangladesh to 

qualify for the regulatory exception to the filing deadline, and her motion was filed 

more than four years after her order of removal became final. See 8 C.F.R. 

§ 1003.2(c)(2), (3)(ii); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 987-90 (9th Cir. 2010) 

(evidence must be “qualitatively different” to warrant reopening). As to her fear of 

harm from ISIS, Rahman has not established prima facie eligibility for relief, 

where she is ineligible for asylum because the agency previously found she was 

firmly resettled in Sweden and has not shown it is more likely than not that she 

would be individually targeted for future persecution or torture. See Toufighi v. 

Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008) (requiring movant to establish prima 

facie eligibility for the relief sought); 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(vi) (an applicant 

may not be granted asylum if she “was firmly resettled in another country prior to 

arriving in the United States”). 

Rahman’s contentions regarding cancellation of removal were not exhausted 

in her motion to reopen. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004)

(generally requiring exhaustion of claims). To the extent she challenges this 

court’s April 2017 dismissal of her prior petition for review, her contentions are 
3 18-71448 

not properly before the court. See Fed. R. App. P. 40(a)(1) (petition for panel 

rehearing must be filed within 45 days after entry of judgment).

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the 

mandate. The motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry No. 24) is otherwise 

denied.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
From: ekarlsen@gocougs.wsu.edu

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:45:54 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Eric Karlsen

Battle Ground, WA 98604
From: mlibgarza2002@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:47:54 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Margarita Garza

Harlingen, TX 78552
From: jrgeorge8@msn.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:38:31 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Jennifer George

Englewood, CO 80111
RESPONDED ON NOVEMBER 30, 2009 7:33 AM 

Rep. John L. Mica, R-Fla., Ranking Member, House Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure 

If Secretary LaHood's Federal Advisory Committee is to be effective, here are five issues I 

believe must be considered: 

1.) Aviation is a global industry. According to a June 2009 Oxford Economics 

report, a total of 2.5 billion passengers are flown worldwide annually; as of 200735% of 

the value of trade in manufactured goods was transported by air; and over 5.5 million 

workers are employed directly in the industry worldwide. Efforts to restrain globalization 

by limiting investment and putting bilateral agreements at risk represent backwards 

thinking. What we need is a forward-thinking, globally-oriented approach. We must 

come to terms with the fact that this is a global industry. 

2.) The need to pass an FAA reauthorization that includes the right level of 

regulatory oversight. Since deregulation the aviation industry has become more and 

more regulated every year. Certainly the federal government has an absolute 

responsibility to oversee the safety of the industry. However, regulatory mandates and 

security directives must be carefully considered and the right balance must be found 

between safety oversight and costly and unnecessary government intervention. 

3.) Competition is good for the consumer. While this is often stated, it is just as 

often undermined. Prior to deregulation, the federal government regulated all aspects of 

the airline industry, including the number of air carriers, routes flown, and airfares. 

Therefore, prices were high and very few people could afford to fly. Since deregulation, 

new carriers have entered the market, new routes and communities are being served, 

and ticket prices have decreased drastically. Unfortunately, there are a number of laws 

that prevent the market from working. Airlines in other parts of the world are able to 

make a profit, but in the United States investment and consolidation are severely limited. 

This is not a healthy situation. 

4.) NextGen is not the sole answer to the aviation industry'S woes. The FAA is 

forecasting a 27% increase in domestic flights and a 70% growth in international 

operations by 2016. If air traffic grows as forecasted, delays in the U.S. will increase 62% 

between 2004 and 2014. Modernizing air traffic control will allow more airplanes in the 

sky, but if airport congestion is not addressed and alternate transportation systems 
developed we will achieve nothing. After years of work, we are no closer to 

understanding what "NextGen" will be able to achieve when completed. To address these 

issues, we need a national transportation strategy that looks at the transportation system 

as a whole. We also need someone in charge and with authority to meet specific 

milestones and make key NextGen decisions. 

5.) Go back to the basics. Aviation is a service-based industry. Airlines need to be 

able to adapt to markets and profitable business models.
<PAGE>


                                                                   EXHIBIT 99.2
                           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 Orbit/FR, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dave Lubbe, 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:

     (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/ Dave Lubbe
------------------------
    Dave Lubbe
Chief Financial Officer
November 14, 2002
From: bwrs26@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:33:45 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Brandon Schroeter

Herington, KS 67449
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002,
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

     In connection with the Quarterly  Report of Alkermes,  Inc. (the "Company")
on Form  10-Q  for the  period  ending  September  30,  2002 as  filed  with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard
F. Pops, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to ss. 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350 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.

                                      /s/ Richard F. Pops
                                      ---------------------------------
                                      Richard F. Pops
                                      Chief Executive Officer
                                      November 14, 2002
No. 60468.

#### Gerhard & Hey Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 268584-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
H. Res. 43

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

January 16, 2007.

Whereas the Boise State University Broncos football team 

won the 2007 Tostitos Fiesta Bowl, defeating the University of Oklahoma Sooners by a score of 43–42 at the 

University of Phoenix Stadium in Glendale, Arizona, on 

January 1, 2007; 

Whereas the Broncos have won the last 5 consecutive Western Athletic Conference football championships; 

Whereas the Broncos are the Nation’s top scoring Division 

1–A collegiate football team for the last 7 seasons, with 

an average of over 42 points per game; 

Whereas the Broncos are the Nation’s 4th winningest Division 1–A collegiate football team for the last 7 seasons, 

with a record of 75–13 and winning percentage of over 

.850. 

Whereas the 2007 Fiesta Bowl is widely considered one of 

the best games in the history of college football; 

Whereas the Broncos are the only Division 1–A collegiate 

football team to complete the 2006–2007 season 

undefeated; 

Whereas Broncos head coach Chris Peterson called some of 

the most creative and courageous offensive plays in bowlgame history, including the game-saving ‘‘hook-and-lat-
2

•HRES 43 EH 

eral’’, game-extending ‘‘tailback pass’’, and game-winning 

‘‘Statue of Liberty’’; 

Whereas the Broncos are 5–2 in Division 1–A collegiate postseason games; 

Whereas Broncos quarterback Jared Zabransky was named 

the Offensive Most Valuable Player of the Fiesta Bowl; 

Whereas Jared Zabransky threw for 3 touchdowns and 262 

yards in the Fiesta Bowl and completed his college career 

with a record of 33–5 as a starting quarterback; 

Whereas Broncos defensive back Marty Tadman was named 

the Defensive Most Valuable Player of the Fiesta Bowl; 

Whereas Marty Tadman intercepted 2 Sooner passes, including one returned for a touchdown, and had 5 tackles in 

the Fiesta Bowl; 

Whereas Broncos running back Ian Johnson, one of the Nation’s most exciting running backs, gained 101 rushing 

yards, scored 1 touchdown, and scored the game-winning 

2-point conversion in overtime of the Fiesta Bowl; 

Whereas the entire Broncos team should be commended for 

its determination, work ethic, attitude, and heart; 

Whereas the Broncos are deserving of an opportunity to play 

for the National Championship; 

Whereas the Broncos are building an impressive legacy of excellence in its football program; and 

Whereas the Broncos have brought great honor to themselves, their university, the city of Boise, and the State 

of Idaho: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives—
3

•HRES 43 EH 

(1) commends the Boise State University Broncos 

football team for winning the 2007 Fiesta Bowl; and 

(2) congratulates the team for completing an 

undefeated, 13–0 season. 

Attest:

Clerk.
AFS-13-217-E April 15, 2013

Exemption No. 10748 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2013-0133

Carol Allen

Parent of Devin Allen

34 Lownie Court Bowmanville, Ontario, Canada L1C5C9

Dear Ms. Allen:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our decision, explains its basis, and lists the conditions and limitations of the exemption, including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter received February 7, 2013, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Devin Allen for an ex emption from § 121.311(b)(2)(iii)(B) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow Devin to exceed the specified weight limit for an FAA-approved child restraint system (CAReS, manufactured by AmSafe Corporation) during use of that child restraint system (CRS) aboard a United States (U.S.) aircraft.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Devin.

The FAA has issued grants of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9834 (copy enclosed), the FAA2

found that numerous people with physical challenges had previously completed flights using restraint systems that addressed unique physical needs regarding safety, support, and security in the same manner of operations as described in this petition. The FAA further found that the petition, if granted, would not set any new precedents regarding the use of restraint systems by persons with disabilities.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

 they do not differ materially from those presented by the petitioner in the enclosed grant.

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed exemption also apply to the situation you present; and

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant Devin Allen exemption from 14 CFR § 121.311(b)(2)(iii)(B). In addition, any air carrier or commercial operator operating under part 121 while Devin is aboard its aircraft is granted an exemption from 14 CFR § 121.311(b)(2)(iii)(B) to the extent necessary to allow Devin to exceed the specified weight limit for an FAA-approved CRS during use of that CRS aboard a U.S. aircraft.

All operations under this exemption must be conducted with at least one of Devin’s parents or a caregiver accompanying him. Devin Allen may only occupy a passenger seat with no passenger seated behind him. In addition, Devin’s parent or caregiver must carry a copy of this exemption and advise the air carrier about the contents of the exemption at least 48 hours before the date of each flight.

This exemption terminates on April 30, 2015, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

Michael J. Zenkovich Acting Deputy Director, Flight Standards

Service

Enclosure