alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1





SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS




This Certificate is being delivered pursuant to the requirements of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 (Mail Fraud) of Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal Procedures) of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.




The undersigned, who are (i) the Chief Executive Officer and (ii) the Chief Financial Officer of United Development Funding IV (the “Trust”), each hereby certify as follows:




The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Trust (the “Report”), which accompanies this Certificate, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and all information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust.




Dated this 31st day of March, 2011.





/s/ Hollis M. GreenlawHollis M. GreenlawChief Executive Officer/s/ Cara D. ObertCara D. ObertChief Financial Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Gholam Farooq SALLEHI; Gholgotai Sallehi; Gholam Waez Sallehi; Mohammad Omar Sallehi, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES,* Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 03-74563.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Aug. 11, 2005.

Decided Aug. 19, 2005.

Warrington S. Parker, III, Esq., Ethan Glass, Esq., Heller Ehrman LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Gholam Farooq Sallehi, Loma Linda, CA, pro se.

Gholgotai Sallehi, Loma Linda, CA, pro se.

Gholam Waez Sallehi, Loma Linda, CA, pro se.

Mohammad Omar Sallehi, Loma Linda, CA, pro se.

CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Carl H. Meln*683tyre, Jr., Earle B. Wilson, Esq., Anthony W. Norwood, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: PREGERSON, KLEINFELD, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

 Alberto R. Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Gholam Farooq Sallehi and his family (“the family”) petitioned this court for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing the family’s appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ’s”) denial of its motion to reopen exclusion proceedings entered *in absentia.*We find that the family has substantially complied with the intent and purpose of *Matter of Lozada,*19 I. & N. Dec. 637, 1988 WL 235454 (BIA 1988), and that the ineffectiveness of the family’s counsel is apparent on the face of the administrative record. *See Rodriguez-Lariz v. INS,*282 F.3d 1218, 1227 (9th Cir.2002). Even if the government’s acquiescence to the motion to reopen at the IJ level is insufficient to constitute joinder, a denial based on 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(3) would be inconsistent with our case law, which provides that petitioners need not demonstrate prejudice when an *in absentia*removal Order results from ineffective assistance of counsel. *See, e.g., Lo v. Ashcroft,*341 F.3d 934, 938 n. 6 (9th Cir.2003).

We remand to the BIA pursuant to *INS v. Ventura,*537 U.S. 12, 16-17, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002), for proceedings consistent with this disposition.

PETITION GRANTED. REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### International Trade Commission

          - [Investigation No. 337-TA-1270]

# AGENCY:

International Trade Commission.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”) is correcting two typos in its confidential Opinion of September 14, 2023, in the above-captioned investigation.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Carl P. Bretscher, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2382. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at                         *https://edis.usitc.gov.*                         For help accessing EDIS, please email                         *EDIS3Help@usitc.gov.*                         General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at                         *https://www.usitc.gov.*                         Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    On page 40, line 2 and page 43, line 13 of its confidential Opinion, the Commission replaces “Amoji” with “La Modish” for La Modish Boutique of West Covina, California, one of four respondents previously found to be in default.                     *See*                     Order No. 58 (May 20, 2022),                     *unreviewed by*                     Comm'n Notice (June 10, 2022).                

The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).

By order of the Commission.

Issued: October 4, 2023.

Lisa Barton,

Secretary to the Commission.

[FR Doc. 2023-22423 Filed 10-6-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6278

WILLIAM E. SHEARRIN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

NEWPORT NEWS, VIRGINIA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District 

Judge. (3:11-cv-00742-HEH)

Submitted: May 30, 2012 Decided: June 7, 2012

Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William E. Shearrin, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

William E. Shearrin seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing his habeas petition as a successive 28 

U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable 

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006); Jones v. 

Braxton, 392 F.3d 683, 688 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of 

the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) 

(2006). When the district court has denied relief on the 

merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court 

denies relief on procedural grounds without reaching the 

underlying constitutional claims, the prisoner must demonstrate 

both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and 

that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a 

constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Shearrin has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate 

of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 
3

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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                                                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                      6-MOS 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                            MAY-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                               JUN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                                 NOV-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                                        1
<CASH>                                                        12,663,000
<SECURITIES>                                                   3,155,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                                  4,662,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                                      92,000
<INVENTORY>                                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                              21,914,000
<PP&E>                                                         8,306,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                                 4,063,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                32,934,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                         14,071,000
<BONDS>                                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                                            0
<COMMON>                                                          48,000
<OTHER-SE>                                                    14,566,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                  32,934,000
<SALES>                                                       39,883,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                              39,883,000
<CGS>                                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                 38,726,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                               306,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                1,463,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                                     549,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                              914,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                        0
<CHANGES>                                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                                     914,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                       0.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                       0.17
        

</TABLE>
Before the Third Division,

July 16, 1957

No. 61062.

protests 290944-K, 290945-K, and 290946-K (New York).

#### Robert L. Albert *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protests were dismissed for lack of prosecution.
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 791 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives in support of Federal 

and State funded home and community-based services for individuals 

with disabilities of any age, especially the elderly. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 1, 2007 

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida (for himself, Mr. WEXLER, and Ms. CASTOR) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 

Energy and Commerce 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives in 

support of Federal and State funded home and community-based services for individuals with disabilities of any 

age, especially the elderly. 

Whereas Federal and State financial assistance is provided 

for nursing home care under the Medicare and Medicaid 

programs for elderly individuals and disabled individuals; 

Whereas home and community-based services are a valuable 

cost-effective alternative to institutional care that benefits 

both the individual receiving such services and the Federal and State programs that fund such services; 

Whereas studies document improved outcomes and better 

quality of care and life for elderly individuals and disVerDate Aug 31 2005 22:06 Nov 01, 2007 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\HR791.IH HR791

hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 791 IH 

abled individuals who are furnished health care in the individuals’ homes or other community settings in contrast 

to nursing homes; 

Whereas publicly funded programs that cover home and community-based services for elderly individuals and disabled 

individuals have limited reach; 

Whereas Federal and State programs provide limited support 

of home and community-based services which serve as an 

alternative to institutional care; 

Whereas support is needed to develop consistent quality assurance measures for home and community-based services; 

Whereas individuals receiving home and community-based 

services deserve an assurance of protection from abuse 

and neglect; and 

Whereas home and community-based services benefit not only 

our parents and grandparents, but also our children and 

grandchildren: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that— 

3 (1) Federal and State financial assistance 

4 should be increased, and access should be broadened, 

5 for publicly supported home and community-based 

6 services for individuals with disabilities; and 

7 (2) there should be implemented on both the 

8 Federal and State levels more unified training and 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
3 

•HRES 791 IH 

1 supervision standards for certified nurse aides and 

2 homecare aides. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
No. 64619.

Suits 5017/5018.

#### United States *v.*Colibri Lighters (U.S.A.), Inc., and Colibri Lighters (U.S.A.), Inc. *v.*United States, respectively.

C.D. 2110 reversed in suit 5017 and affirmed in suit 5018, June 14, 1960. C.A.D. 739.
---

Exhibit 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration
  Statement:



Form S-8     333-172330 2010     Stock
  Incentive Plan



of our report dated March 31, 2011, with respect to the consolidated
  financial statements of Asia Green Agriculture Corporation, included in this
  Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Asia Green Agriculture Corporation for the year
  ended December 31, 2011.



|/s/ PKF                                                                              | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | 
|PKF 
      Certified Public Accountants
      Hong Kong, China 
      March 31, 2011 | 

---
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER- 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, ) CASE NO. CR06-149 RSM

)

v. ) DETENTION ORDER 

)

JEFFREY D. FRENCH, )

)

Defendant. )

_________________________________)

Date of hearing: January 4, 2007

Today I conducted a detention hearing on alleged violations of conditions of

release. After review of the record and hearing of the arguments regarding detention,

defendant shall be detained. The bond violations are numerous and include the alleged

use of drugs and failure to stay in touch with Pretrial Services. Defendant shall remain

detained pending an evidentiary hearing. 

Dated this 4th day of January, 2007

AMONICA J. BENTON

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:06-cr-00149-RSM Document 273 Filed 01/04/07 Page 1 of 1
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Oredeposits of the Jerome and Bradshaw Mountains quadrangles, Arizona**
 
Report | Plates: 0102
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.3:782
Item Number:0620 (online)
CGP systemNumber: 000959880
 
August 6, 2018
No. 65248.

#### Enicar Watch Corporation *v.*United States,

protest 60/12475 (New York).

Richardson, Judge:

The merchandise in this case consists of wristwatches and watch movements imported from Switzerland and entered at the port of New York.

On appraisement, the entered value of the merchandise was advanced by the appraiser. A notice, dated August 6, 1959, was sent to the importer of record informing it that the appraised value exceeded the entered value. No appeal was taken from the appraisement within the period provided in 19 U.S.C.A., section 1501 (section 501, Tariff Act of 1930), as amended, and, on February 10, 1960, the entry was liquidated by the collector of customs on the basis of the value as found by the appraiser.

On March 11, 1960, the plaintiff filed the instant protest, which reads in part as follows:

> We must, therefore, protest the advancement of the case values and insist that their correct value is Sirs. 5.70 — as verified by the supplier, Enicab S.A., F.H. and the Watchmakers of Switzerland.

Defendant has moved to dismiss said protest on the ground that it does not express dissatisfaction with any action of the collector, but attacks the appraiser’s finding of value, which has become final and conclusive under the provisions of section 1501, *supra.*

Defendant’s motion to dismiss is well founded. It is apparent from a reading of the protest that the only question raised thereby relates to the correctness of the appraised values of the instant merchandise. Not a single claim is made therein with respect to any action of the collector, nor is the legality of the appraisement questioned.

“While an appraisement may be attacked on protest because those making it ‘proceeded on a wrong principle contrary to law or transcended the powers granted by statute,’ *United States*v. *Passavant,*169 U.S. 16, it is limited to that and an attack upon the amount of the appraised value, no question of law being involved, can only be had on reappraisement appeal.” *T. S. Kennedy Co.*v. *United States,*2 Cust. Ct. 404, C.D. 165. See also *Eurasia Import Co., Inc.*v. *United States,*31 C.C.P.A. (Customs) 144, C.A.D. 265.

Plaintiff could have accomplished what it is here attempting to do, that is, challenge the appraiser’s valuation of the imported merchandise herein, by filing a timely appeal for reappraisement pursuant to section 1501, *supra.*However, since no such appeal was filed, the appraised values have become final and conclusive upon all persons and may not now be attacked.

Defendant’s motion to dismiss the protest is granted. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
| Skip to Content*Release Date: September 18, 2014*Release dates |  Announcements |   Coded tables |  Historical data | Technical Q&AsCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB) |  Data Download Program (DDP)**L.217 Total Mortgages** |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
# Official Journal C 380/2021

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 380 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6420 September 2021 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 380

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6420 September 2021

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2021/C 380/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10059 — SK hynix/Intel’s NAND and SSD business) (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2021/C 380/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10059 — SK hynix/Intel’s NAND and SSD business) (
  1
  )

1

1

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2021/C 380/02 | Euro exchange rates — 17 September 2021 | 2 |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2021/C 380/03 | Update of the list of border crossing points as referred to in Article 2(8) of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) | 3 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2021/C 380/02

Euro exchange rates — 17 September 2021

2

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2021/C 380/03

Update of the list of border crossing points as referred to in Article 2(8) of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code)

3

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Investment Bank |
| 2021/C 380/04 | Call for proposals – The European Investment Bank Institute proposes a new EIBURS sponsorship under its Knowledge Programme | 12 |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMON COMMERCIAL POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2021/C 380/05 | Notice of initiation of a partial interim review of the countervailing measures applicable to imports of certain rainbow trout originating in the Republic of Turkey | 15 |

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Investment Bank

2021/C 380/04

Call for proposals – The European Investment Bank Institute proposes a new EIBURS sponsorship under its Knowledge Programme

12

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMON COMMERCIAL POLICY

European Commission

2021/C 380/05

Notice of initiation of a partial interim review of the countervailing measures applicable to imports of certain rainbow trout originating in the Republic of Turkey

15

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
No. 55686.

protests 164144-K, etc. (New York).

#### Baar & Beards, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

The protests were dismissed.