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

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.§1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Winton Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund on Form 10-Q for the period
ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, to the best of his knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Winton Series.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                                                                         
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Robert J. Enck                                                                                                                       
|Robert J. Enck                                                                                                                           
|President and Chief Executive Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of Winton Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund



|                                                                                                                           
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Brent Bales                                                                                                            
|Brent Bales                                                                                                                
|Chief Financial Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of Winton Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund

Date: November 26, 2008
EXHIBIT 99.2



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



In  connection  with  the  Annual  Report  of The  Neptune  Society,  Inc.  (the
"Company") Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1 for the period ended December 31, 2001 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  I, Rodney Bagley,  Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,
pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  ss.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 this Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations
          of the Company.




                                          /s/ Rodney Bagley
                                          -------------------------------------
                                          Rodney Bagley
                                          Chief Financial Officer
                                          September 13, 2002
(Reap. Dec. 9556)

#### John H. Faunce New York, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 921663.

(Decided December 9, 1959)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for tbe defendant.

Lawkence, Judge:

There was no appearance on behalf of plaintiff when the above-enumerated appeal for a reappraisement was called for hearing and the case was ordered submitted by the court.

Rule 5(a) of the rules of the court provides that—

> The submission for decision of any case shall be made in open court by the parties thereto or their attorneys, or by stipulation, or by written request to the court, or by the court on its own motion. Where the plaintiff, petitioner, or appellant, or his attorney, in a case does not appear when the same is called, and after the opposite party has had opportunity to present evidence on the issues, it may be deemed submitted and may be decided by the court on the record as it appears therein.

Accordingly, I have examined the record in the appeal before the court and find nothing therein which tends in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness which attaches to the decision of the appraiser. I find and hold, therefore, that the proper value of the merchandise is the value returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Case No. 13,225.

#### SPEAR v. STUART.

[See Case No. 13,223.]
Exhibit 31.2

I, Marc N. Teal, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Boston Capital Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



1. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
2. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
3. disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and



1. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



1. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
2. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.





|August 14, 2006 | /s/ Marc N. Teal       
|--------------- | -----------------------
|                | Marc N. Teal           
|                | Chief Financial Officer
|                |
Exhibit 99.1

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

     In  connection  with the Annual  Report of The Neptune  Society,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Marco
Markin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that:

     (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 this Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of
          all the Company.




                                                   /s/ Marco Markin
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                   Marco Markin
                                                   Chief Executive Officer
                                                   April 30, 2003
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 50 (Thursday, March 15, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 12174]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4715]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Notice of Membership of Performance Review Board for Senior 
Executives (PRB)

March 9, 2007.
    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby provides notice of 
the membership of its Performance Review Board (PRB) for the 
Commission's Senior Executive Service (SES) members. The function of 
this board is to make recommendations relating to the performance of 
senior executives in the Commission. This action is undertaken in 
accordance with Title 5, U.S.C. 4314(c)(4). The Commission's PRB will 
remove the following member: Daniel L. Larcamp.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-4715 Filed 3-14-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
#### Adam B. Smith, *as Administrator, etc., Appellant v.*Emily H. Hathorn and others.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and printing disbursements. Bookes, J., not acting.
EXHIBIT 8







Subsidiaries of the Company





Following is a list of subsidiaries of the Company, ownership percentages, and the jurisdictions of incorporation or organization of each.  Each subsidiary does business in its own name only.



|Subsidiary                         | Jurisdiction of Incorporation
or Organization
|---------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------
|                                   |                                              
|Rio Narcea Gold Mines, S.A. (100%) | Spain                                        
|Naraval Gold, SRL (100%)           | Spain                                        
|Rio Narcea Recursos, S.A. (100%) * | Spain                                        
|Rio Narcea Recursos, Ltd. (100%)   | Ontario                                      
|Rio Narcea Nickel, S.A. (100%)     | Spain                                        



(*) Rio Narcea Recursos, S.A. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Rio Narcea Recursos, Ltd.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                             459
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     9511
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  9970
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    9970
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             3175
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          9840
<OTHER-SE>                                      (3045)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      9970
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 12905
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (12905)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (12905)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (12905)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STEVEN BERTRAND CLOSE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner 

of Social Security, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 21-35077 

D.C. No. 6:19-cv-00557-MK 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Mustafa T. Kasubhai, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 8, 2023**

San Francisco, California

Before: WALLACE, O’SCANNLAIN, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Steven Close appeals from the district court’s denial of fees under the Equal 

Access to Justice Act (EAJA). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 

We review a district court’s denial of EAJA attorneys’ fees for an abuse of 

* 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

JUN 14 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

discretion. See Meier v. Colvin, 727 F.3d 867, 869 (9th Cir. 2013). We affirm. 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the 

government’s litigation position and pre-litigation conduct were substantially 

justified. Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1563(b), an ALJ is not required to make express 

findings or to otherwise explain its consideration of a claimant’s borderline age. See 

Lockwood v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 616 F.3d 1068, 1070, 1073 (9th Cir. 2010). 

To the extent that internal agency interpretations of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1563(b) require 

more, these interpretations are not binding. See id. at 1072–73; Moore v. Apfel, 216 

F.3d 864, 869 & n.2 (9th Cir. 2000). Therefore, the government’s position was 

substantially justified. See Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 566 n.2 (1988)

(holding that substantial justification is met where “a reasonable person could think 

[the government’s position] correct, that is, if it has a reasonable basis in law and 

fact”).

AFFIRMED.
A fte r ex am in in g th e b rie fs a n d th e re c or d , w e h av e c on c lu d ed th atora l arg u m en t is * u n n ec es sa ry . T h u s, th e a p p ea l is su b m itt ed onth e b rie fs a n d th e re c or d
. See F ED . R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2) (B). 

# United States Court of App eals F or the Se ven th C ir cu it Ch i cago ,I l l i nois 6 0604 Subm i tte d M ar ch 3 , 20 10 * Deci ded M ar ch 4, 20 10 B efo re JO E L M . FL A U M , Cir cu i tJudg e M IC H A E L S. K A N N E , Cir cu i tJudg e IL A N A D IA M O N D R O V N E R, Cir cu i tJudg e N o. 09
- 3277 UNI T E D S T AT E S O F AME R I C A, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. D O N A L D R A Y Y O U N G , D ef endant-Appellant. A pp ealfro m the U ni ted S tat es Dist ri ct Cou r t f o rthe Ea st ern Di st r i cto fW i sc o ns i n. N o. 06
- CR
- 332 C h ar les N . C lev er t, Jr., Chie f Judg e .

O R D E R I n thi s cr i m i nalcas e, Donal d Ray Young appeal s fro m a dist ri ct c ourto rderthat gr an te d a go ve rn m en t m ot ion to red u c e h is s en te n c e fo r su b st an tia l as sis ta n c e, see F ED . R. NONP RE C E DE NT I AL DI S PO S I T I ON To b e ci te d o nl y in a cc o r dan ce wi th Fe d . R. A p p . P. 32 .1N o. 09
- 3277 Page 2

C RIM . P. 35 ( b) ( 2) , and ar gues that dist ri ct c ourter re d by r efusi ng to co nsi der the di spari ty b e t we e nc r a c ka n d p o wd e rc o c a i n e s e n t e n c e s . We a ffi r m. Y ou ng plead ed guilty in 20 07 to kno w ing an d int en tional distribu tion of 50 or m ore gr am s o fcr ack coca i ne, 21 U . S. C. § 841( a) ( 1) , (b) ( 1) ( A ) , and w as sente nced to ten y ear s’ i mpr i s o nme ntfo l l o we d b y 5 y e a r s ’ s up e r v i s e d r e l e a s e . In M a y 2 0 0 9 , the g o v e r nme ntfi l e d a m ot ion to red u c e Y ou n g’s se n te n c e b as ed onh is s u b st an tia l as sis ta n c e t o th e g ov er n m en t. A t the hear i ng, Young ar gued that the c ourtsho uld al so consi der the di spari ty between cr ac ka nd po wderc o ca i ne s en te nc es . T he di st r i ctc o ur t st at ed th ati t co ul d no t co ns i derthe dispar i ty. I t g ra nted the gov ernm ent' s m oti on a nd r educed Youn g’ s s entence by20 m onths. W e ha ve r ec en tly a ddr es se d the matt erin U nite d States v. Shelb y, 58 4 F . 3d 743, 74 9- 50 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09) , wh i ch hel d that, o nce di str i ct c ourt s deci de to gr ant aRule 35 ( b) ( 2) substa nti al
- ass i sta nce m oti on, theym ay not then co nsi der the f acto rs ar ti cul ate d i n 18 U .S.C . § 35 53 (a), in c lu d in g a n y d isp ar ity be tw ee ncr ac k a n d p ow d er co c ain e s en te n c es . Young urg es us to r eco nsi der the m att er, but concedes that Shelb yco n tr ols
. W e re c en tly den i ed r eh ea r i nga nd r eh ea r i nge n b an c i n Shelby, and Young offer s no ar gum ent no t consi dered in that case . W e there f or e AF F I RM th e d istri ct cou rt’s order.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 56 (Friday, March 23, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 13823]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5395]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration

    By Notice dated November 21, 2006, and published in the Federal 
Register on December 1, 2006, (71 FR 69590-69591), ISP Freetown Fine 
Chemicals, Inc., 238 South Main Street, Assonet, Massachusetts 02702, 
made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration 
(DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of 
controlled substances listed in schedule I and II:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Drug                               Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2,5-Dimethoxyamphetamine (7396)............  I
Amphetamine (1100).........................  II
Phenylacetone (8501).......................  II
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The company plans to manufacture Phenylacetone to be used in the 
manufacture of Amphetamine for distribution to its customers. The bulk 
2,5-Dimethoxyamphetamine will be used for conversion into non-
controlled substances.
    No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered 
the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of 
ISP Freetown Fine Chemicals, Inc. to manufacture the listed basic 
classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest 
at this time. DEA has investigated ISP Freetown Fine Chemicals, Inc. to 
ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public 
interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the 
company's physical security systems, verification of the company's 
compliance with State and local laws, and a review of the company's 
background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in 
accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted 
registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled 
substances listed.

    Dated: March 8, 2007.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
 [FR Doc. E7-5395 Filed 3-22-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
Opinion filed April 11 , 201 3



## In The



# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________



### No. 11

- 13

- 00062

- C R

_________

JESUS JOSE MUNIZ

, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 358 th District Court

Ector County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. D

- 36,766

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Jesus Jose Muniz has filed in this court a motion to withdraw his notice of appeal and

dismiss his appeal. Pursuant to T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.2, the motion is signed by both A ppellant and

his counsel. Additionally, Appellant’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is granted. Appellant’s notice of appeal is withdrawn,

and the appeal is dismissed. Couns el’s motion to withdraw is dismissed as moot.

April 11 , 2013 PER CURIAM

Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Willson, J.
# C_2007204EN.01000801.xml

| 1.9.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 204/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.9.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 204/8

---

Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/M.4404 — Universal/BMG Music Publishing

(pursuant to Articles 15 and 16 of Commission Decision (2001/462/EC, ECSC) of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings — OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21)

(pursuant to Articles 15 and 16 of Commission Decision (2001/462/EC, ECSC) of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings — OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21)

(2007/C 204/04)

On 3 November 2006, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 by which the undertaking Universal Music Group Inc. (‘Universal’) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation sole control of the whole of the undertaking BMG Music Publishing (‘BMG’) which currently forms part of the Bertelsmann group, by way of purchase of shares and assets.

Upon examination of the evidence submitted by the parties to the proposed concentration and after conducting a market investigation, the Commission concluded that the concentration raised serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common market and decided to initiate proceedings under Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation on 8 December 2006.

Access to key documents was provided to the notifying party on 21 December 2006 and again on 26 January 2007, in accordance with the best practices on the conduct of EC merger control proceedings.

On 15 March 2007 the parties offered commitments that modified the original concentration plan. These commitments were modified on 26 March and again on 30 March, and final commitments were submitted on 23 April 2007. On the basis of these undertakings the relevant Commission service considered that the serious doubts had been removed. Accordingly no Statement of objections was sent to the parties.

No queries were raised before me by the parties or other companies as to the market test.

The case does not call for any particular comments as regards the right to be heard.

Brussels, 11 May 2007.

Serge DURANDE

---