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 the Currency Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 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 the Currency Series.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Date: May 12, 2010
#### Mangan *v.*Pittsburgh et al., Appellants.

Submitted September 29, 1969.

Before Bell, C. J., Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien, Roberts and Pomeroy, JJ.

*Robert E. Dauer,*Assistant City Solicitor, and *Marion K. Fmkelhor,*City Solicitor, for appellants.

*Stanford A. Segal,*and *Cats, Cohen & O’Brien,*for appellee.

November 11, 1969:

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Judgment affirmed.
#### Thomas B. Kerr and others, *Plaintiffs, v.*George B. McAneny, *Defendant.*

— Judgment ordered for plaintiffs, with costs. Opinion by Brady, J.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          (60,916)
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   267,805
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                     486,572
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                827,829
<PP&E>                                                0
<DEPRECIATION>                                  195,288
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                2,761,799
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           338,622
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                          8,310
<OTHER-SE>                                    2,393,422
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  2,761,799
<SALES>                                         829,755
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                898,450
<CGS>                                           582,346
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 1,673,900
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              (18,304)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (1,339,492)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   0
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (1,339,492)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (0.10)




</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 10.36

                                 DAVID MCINTOSH
                            7932 FLAGLER COURT SOUTH
                            WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33405
                    PHONE (561) 355-3900; FAX (561) 582-5747

                                                                January 24, 2001



Mr. Leon F. Maraist, President
US Diagnostic, Inc.
250 South Australian Avenue
West Palm Beach, FL 33401

Dear Leon:

This will confirm our conversation of yesterday, wherein you agreed, with the
consent of the other two Directors, to another extension of my consulting
contract with the Company, under the terms set forth below.

         1. I will be paid a fee of $60,000, payable in all events, for leading
our efforts in the IRG transaction. That fee will be paid whether the
transaction with IRG occurs or not. The fee will be paid for my services in that
matter and for the fact that I have committed to provide those services to the
exclusion of other business opportunities. Although this fee is fully earned on
the date of this letter, I have agreed to defer the payment of the fee for the
sake of cash conservation within the Company. Thus fee will be paid over 4
months, at the rate of $15,000 per month, by the 5th day of each month,
beginning June, 2001.

         2. If the transaction with IRG closes, I will be paid a success fee in
the amount of $200,000 within 10 days of closing.

         3. I will be provided with office space and resources comparable to
those which I use now, through the end of this calendar year, so long as the
Company occupies space in West Palm Beach.

         4. I will be reimbursed promptly for all Company-related expenses which
I incur.



                                                             Sincerely,



ACCEPTED:
                                                              /s/ David McIntosh
/s/ Leon F. Maraist                          2-1-01           ------------------
-----------------------------              -----------
Leon F. Maraist, President                 Date
#### THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellants, *v.*HUBERT GIROUX, President, etc., and THE LAFAYETTE FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondents.

*Additional allowance*— ca/nnot *he granted in an action to remove an officer of a corporation for misconduct*— *Code of Civil Procedure, sec.*3358.

No additional allowances can be granted under section 3353 of the Code of Civil Procedure in an action brought to procure the suspension and removal from office of the president of a fire insurance company, upon the ground of his misconduct, as the subject-matter involved therein has no pecuniary value.

Appeal from an order made at a Special Term granting an additional allowance.

*William G. Cooke,*for the appellants.

*Cha/wncey Schaffer,*for the respondents.

Dykman, J.:

This action is for the suspension and removal of the defendant from the office of president of a fire insurance company on allegations of misconduct. The cause was tried at Special Term, and decided in favor of the defendant, who was awarded an additional allowance of $500. From this order granting the allowance we have this appeal. This order must stand under the provisions of section 3253 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or it must fall. Under that section an allowance can be made in certain specified kinds of actions, or in a difficult and extraordinary case where a defense has been interposed in any actions, of a sum not exceeding five per centum on the sum recovered or claimed, or the value of the subject-matter involved. In this action nothing was recovered or claimed, and no subject-matter was involved having any pecuniary value. The subject involved was the conduct of the defendant. There is, therefore, no basis for an additional allowance. It is true there was an allegation that certain amounts of money had been lost by the mismanagement of the defendant, but the plaintiff claimed no interest in it, and the action was not for its recovery.

The order should be reversed, with costs and disbursements.

Cullen, J"., concurred; Barnard, P. J., not sitting.

Order granting allowance reversed, with costs and disbursements.
#### HARRY ROTHBERG, APPELLANT, v. THE MAYOR AND ALDERMEN OF JERSEY CITY, RESPONDENT.

Argued November 22, 1918

Decided March 3, 1919.

On appeal from the Supreme Court.

Por the appellant, *Gilbert Collins.*

For the respondent, *John Milton.*

Per Curiam.

This appeal involves the same fundamental question decided at the'present term in case No. 61 *(Mayor and Aldermen of Jersey City*v. *John R. Hennessey, ante p.*606), and for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in that case the judgment herein on review is reversed, with costs.

*For affirmance*— None.

*For reversal*— The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Swayze, Trenchard, Parker, Minturn, Kalisch, White, Heppenheimer, Williams, Taylor, Gardner, JJ. 12.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                             WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460



                              MAR 14 2001                      OFFICE OF
                                                      PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND
                                                           TOXIC SUBSTANCES



Mr. Mack Jones
President
Commodore Advanced Sciences, Inc.
2340 Menaul Boulevard NE
Albuquerque, NM  87107

Dear Mr. Jones:

         On February 14, 2001, Commodore Advanced Sciences, Inc. (Commodore)
requested a renewal of the Commodore Applied Technologies, Inc., TSCA PCB
approval dated March 7, 1996, with two subsequent revisions (the latest on May
29, 1998). Commodore requested an amendment to this approval to include the S-10
reactor which was demonstrated in November 2000 in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and
a renewal for the continued operation of the L1200 and the Type S Reactors. The
Commodore approval expires on March 15, 2001.

         The demonstration test results are currently under review by the Office
of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT). The review is expected to be
completed by September 15, 2001. The approval will then be renewed for the
continued operation of the L1200 and Type S Reactors and amended to incorporate
the results from the November 2000 demonstration of the S-10 reactor. Approval
is contingent on acceptable results from the demonstration test and the permit
conditions being agreeable with Commodore.

         In the interim, a renewal of the TSCA PCB Disposal Approval dated May
29, 1998, is hereby granted to Commodore Advanced Sciences, Inc., of
Albuquerque, New Mexico to operate the L1200 and Type S Reactors as described by
the conditions in the May 29, 1998 Approval and is effective upon date of
signature. This approval shall expire on September 15, 2001.

         If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Winston
Lue of my staff at (202) 260-3962.


                                            Sincerely,



                                            Linda Vlier Moos, Acting Director
                                            National Program Chemicals Division

Cc:      PCB Coordinators
         USEPA, Region I-X
#### JACK GRUBER, *ET AL.,*PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. THE MAYOR AND TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE OF THE TOWNSHIP OF RARITAN, *ET AL.,*DEFENDANTS-PETITIONERS.

See same case below: 73 *N. J. Super.*120.

*Messrs. Roberts, PiTlsbury & Carton*for the petitioners.

*Messrs. Parsons, Canzona, Blair ■& Warren*for the respondents.

May 14, 1962.
August 30, 1955

Reap. Dec. 8482.

#### *B. Dorman & Sons, Inc.*v. *United States.*

REHEARING MOTION GRANTED

Motion by plaintiff.
#### John I. Shufelt and others, *Appellants, v.*Maria Watrous and others, *Respondents.*

— Judgment reversed and new trial granted; referee discharged, costs to abide event. Opinion by Learned, P. J. Mem. by Boardman, J.
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

     In  connection with the Annual report of Zann Corp. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB  for  the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission  on  the  date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert C. Simpson,
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) 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 the
Company.

     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.

                                        /s/ Robert C. Simpson
                                        ---------------------------------------
                                        Robert C. Simpson, President, Secretary,
                                        Chairman of the Board of Directors
                                        Date: April 18, 2005


<PAGE>
#### NEW YORK SWITCH AND CROSSING COMPANY, APPELLANT, v. ROSE MULLENBACH ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Submitted March 25, 1918

Decided May 3, 1918.

On appeal from the Supreme Court, in which the following *per curiam,*was filed:

“This'is a workmen’s compensation case, in which judgment was given for the petitioner in the Hudson Common Pleas Court. Petitioner’s decedent, Andrew Mullenbach, was employed by the prosecutor as a foreman on March 11th, 1916; while engaged in lifting a heavy steel girder he strained the muscles of his back, aggravating two hernias; as a result he had to undergo an operation; he afterwards, on June 4th, *2551916, died of a post-operative pneumonia. The trial court found as a fact that the accident arose out of and in the course of his employment. This is the controverted question in the case. Our reading of the testimony satisfied us that the trial court’s findings of fact are supported by the evidence. This is conclusive. *Hulley*v. *Moosebrugger,*88 *N. J. L.*161. There is no legal merit in the other reasons presented for setting aside the judgment.

“The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas is affirmed, with costs.”

For the appellant, *Kalisch & Kalisch.*

For the respondents, *Doherty & Kinkead.*

Per Curiam.

The judgment under review will be affirmed, for the reasons set forth in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

*For affirmcmce*— The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Swayze, Trenchard, Parker, Minturn, Kalisch, White, Heppenheimer, Williams, Gardner, JJ. 11.

*For reversal*— Hone.
THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Mr. John M. McManus Vice President Environmenta l Se r vices American E lectric Power I Riverside P laza Columbus, Ohio 43215-23 73 Dear M r . McManus: WASHINGTON
. D.C. 20460 

## APR 2 9 1 U1 6

I am responding to the American E l ectric Power petiti on fo r reconsideration of the final action , titled
" Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Em i ss io n s from New, Modified , and Reconstructed Stationary Sou rces : Electric Ut ili ty Generating Units , " w hi ch was pub li s hed in the 

### Federal Register on October 23 , 2015 (80 FR 6451 0)
. Section 307( d)(7)(B) of the C lean A ir Act sets forth the cr ite ri a for reconsideration
. T h at section states that " [o]nly an objection to a rul e or procedure whic h was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public co mm ent (including any public hearin g) m ay be raised during judicial review. If the person raising an objection can demonstrate to the Adm ini strato r that it was imp ract ical to ra ise such objection with in suc h time or if the grounds for such objection arose afte r the period for public comment (but with in the time specified for judicia l review) and if suc h objection is of cent r a l relevance to the outcome of the rule , the Adm ini s trator s h a ll co nve ne a proceeding fo r reconsideration of the rule and prov ide the same p rocedu ral rights as wou ld h ave been affo rd ed had the information been avai lab le at the time the rule was proposed." After careful considerati o n of the issues rai sed in the Ame ric a n E lectric Power petition, I deny the petition in its enti r ety. No ne of th e objec ti ons ra ised in the pet iti o n satisfy t he c ri teria for reco n siderat ion set out in Clean Air Act section 307(d)(7)(B). My r easons fo r this conclusion are f ull y set forth in an enclosed memorandum , " Basis for D enia l of Petitions to Reconsider the CAA Section 111 (b) Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Em issions from New , Modified, and Reconstructed Fossi l Fue lfired E lectric Ut ility Ge nera tin g Un it s, " which is also ava il ab l e in the rulemaking dockets.

Enclos ure

This pape r i s printed with vegetab l e·o•l·based .nks and is 1 00·percent postconsumer recycled matenal. chlorine·free·processed and recyclable
.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALICE PAMELA MAZAIWANA, AKA

Grace Bezaliel, AKA Janepher Mazaiwana,

AKA Pamela Mazaiwana Ncube,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney

General,

Respondent. No. 19

- 70081

Agency No. A206

- 438

- 999

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 1 7 , 2023 * *

Before: CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and BRESS , Circuit Judges.

Alice Pamela Mazaiwana, a native and citizen of Zimbabwe, petitions pro se

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

an immigration judge’s decision denying her applications for asylum, withholding

* 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

APR 24 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 70081

of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We

have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the

agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr , 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Ci r.

2020). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that even if a

presumption of future persecution applied, the presumption was rebutted where

,

among other things, the agent of Mazaiwana’s past harm ha s di ed, and she

regularly returned to Zimbabwe without incident

. See Gonzalez

- Hernandez v.

Ashcroft , 336 F.3d 995, 998

- 99 (9th Cir. 2003) ( substantial evidence supported

finding that presumption of future persecution was rebutted) ; 8 C.F.R.

§ § 1 208.13(b)(1)(i)( A ) (asylum)

, 1208.16(b)(1) (i) (A) (withholding of removal).

Thus, Mazaiwan a’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

Substantial evidence a lso supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection

because Mazaiwana failed to show it is more likely than not she will be tortured by

or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Zimbabwe

.

See Aden v. Holder , 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

The stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 23


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-33974) pertaining to the Apropos Technology, Inc.
2000 Omnibus Incentive Plan and the Apropos Technology, Inc. Employee Stock
Purchase Plan of 2000, of our report dated February 26, 2001, with respect to
the consolidated financial statements incorporated herein by reference, included
in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.


                                           /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
                                           Ernst & Young LLP


Chicago, Illinois
March 29, 2001
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATE OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, the Chief Financial Officer, of Witness Systems, Inc. (the "registrant"), certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A of the registrant;

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:



5.     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:



|Dated: July 30, 2004 |  |     |                                                            
|-------------------- |  | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------
|                     |  | BY: | /s/WILLIAM F. EVANSWilliam F. Evans Chief Financial Officer

---



QuickLinks
No. 46201.

#### Protest 23481-K of Bullocks, Inc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was stipulated that the silk mufflers are the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 44055. The claim at 60 percent under paragraph 1209 was therefore sustained. The powder boxes in question were held dutiable as household utensils at 40 percent under paragraph 339 following Abstract 30942 and in accordance with stipulation of counsel.
#### Millili *v.*Alan Wood Steel Company, Appellant.

Argued November 21, 1968.

April 23, 1969:

Before Bell, C. J., Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien and Roberts, JJ.

*Thomas J. Burke,*with him *Haws & Burke,*for appellant.

*John J. McCarty,*with him *Chandes A. Lord,*and *Richter, Lord, Toll, Cavanaugh, McCarty & Raynes,*for appellee.

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Judgment affirmed.
* The link to the Adobe� Web site is provided as a convenience tovisitors consistent with the purposes of  this Web site and does not constitute endorsement of this or any other Adobe�products by the Air Force.