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

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Daxor Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date thereof (the "Report"), I, Stephen Feldschuh,
Vice-President of Operations and 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (2)   The information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.


/s/ Stephen Feldschuh
---------------------
Stephen Feldschuh
Vice President of Operations and Chief Financial Officer
August 11, 2003


                                       8
#### John JOSEY, Jr. v. STATE of Florida and Roy H. Amidon, Judge of the Criminal Court of Record, Polk County et al.

No. 39187.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 1970.

Certiorari denied without opinion.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 242 (Wednesday, December 17, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 66125]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32912]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
[ES-960-1420-00; ES-48892, Group 28, Illinois]


Notice of Filing of Plat of Survey; Illinois

    The plat, in five sheets, of the dependent resurvey of the west 
boundary and subdivisional lines, and the survey of the Lock and Dam 
No. 26 Acquisition Boundary, Township 12 South, Range 1 West, and the 
dependent resurvey of portions of the north boundary, portions of the 
subdivisional lines, and the survey of the Lock and Dam Nos. 25 and 26 
Acquisition Boundaries, Township 12 South, Range 2 West, and the 
dependent resurvey of the north and east boundaries and subdivisional 
lines, Township 12 South, Range 3 West, all of the Fourth Principal 
Meridian, Illinois, will be officially filed in Eastern States, 
Springfield, Virginia at 7:30 a.m., on January 20, 1998.
    The survey was requested by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
    All inquiries or protests concerning the technical aspects of the 
survey must be sent to the Chief Cadastral Surveyor, Eastern States, 
Bureau of Land Management, 7450 Boston Boulevard, Springfield, Virginia 
22153, prior to 7:30 a.m., January 20, 1998.
    Copies of the plat will be made available upon request and 
prepayment of the reproduction fee of $2.75 per copy.

    Dated: December 8, 1997.
Stephen G. Kopach,
Chief Cadastral Surveyor.
[FR Doc. 97-32912 Filed 12-16-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-GJ-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
consolidated condensed balance sheet and the consolidated condensed statement of
operations on pages 3 through 5 of the Company's quarterly report on Form 10-QSB
for the quarter  ended March 31,  1999,  and is  qualified  in it's  entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         3,431
<SECURITIES>                                   824
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2,418
<ALLOWANCES>                                   1,899
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4,853
<PP&E>                                         3,826
<DEPRECIATION>                                 631
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 11,920
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          591
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    5
<COMMON>                                       3,900
<OTHER-SE>                                     4,040
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   11,920
<SALES>                                        673
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               732
<CGS>                                          709
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  709
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               259
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (42)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (230)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (4)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (234)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (234)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.04)
        

</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JAIME DUENAS-HERNANDEZ, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 18-70906 

Agency No. A087-991-568 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 3, 2020**

Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Jaime Duenas-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for 

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to 

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

review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Garcia v. Holder, 

621 F.3d 906, 912-13 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the 

* 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

MAR 10 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-70906 

petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review Duenas-Hernandez’s contentions regarding 

hardship to his United States citizen daughter, where the evidence is cumulative of 

his previously denied application for cancellation of removal. See Fernandez v. 

Gonzalez, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006) (court lacks jurisdiction over a motion 

to reopen where new evidence is cumulative of a previously considered 

discretionary determination). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying 

Duenas-Hernandez’s motion on the ground that the new evidence of his daughter’s 

scoliosis was insufficient to establish prima facie eligibility for cancellation of 

removal. See id. (court has jurisdiction to review the agency’s decision where “the 

evidence submitted addresses a hardship ground so distinct from that considered 

previously as to make the motion to reopen a request for new relief”).

To the extent Duenas-Hernandez challenges the BIA’s hardship 

determination on direct appeal, we lack jurisdiction to consider that challenge, 

where this petition is untimely as to that decision. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1).

Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider Duenas-Hernandez’s unexhausted 

ineffective assistance of counsel claim, where he failed to raise the claim in the 

order under review. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) 
3 18-70906 

(“We lack jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented in an alien’s 

administrative proceedings before the BIA.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
N O T F O RP U B L IC A T IO NIN W E S T ' S H AWA I # I RE P O R T S A N D P A C IF IC RE P O R T E R



### NOS. CAAP-20-0000135 AND CAAP-20-0000290

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
O F THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

CAAP-20-0000135 THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON FKA THE BANK OF NEW YORK AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF THE CWABS, INC., ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005-AB4, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KIEL JAMES PATTISON; ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS OF E LIMA LANI CONDOMINIUMS; JOHN DOES 1-20; JANE DOES 1-20; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-20; DOE ENTITIES 1-20; AND DOE GOVERNMENTAL UNITS 1-20, Defendants-Appellants

AND
CAAP-20-0000290 THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON FKA THE BANK OF NEW YORK AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF THE CWABS, INC., ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005-AB4, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS OF ELIMA LANI CONDOMINIUMS; D efendant-Appellant, and KIEL JAMES PATTISON; JOHN DOES 1-20; JANE DOES 1-20; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-20; DOE ENTITIES 1-20;

AND DOE GOVERNMENTAL UNITS 1-20, Defendants

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT

(CIVIL NO. 18-1-118K)

O RDER APPROVING STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE ( By: Chan, Presiding Judge, Hiraoka and Wadsworth, JJ.) Upon consideration of the "Stipulation for Dismissal With Prejudice as to Defendant-Appellant Association of Apartment Owners of Elima Lani Condominiums' Consolidated Appeal" ( Stipulation ), filed July 20, 2020, by Defendant-Appellant Association of Apartment Owners of Elima Lani Condominiums, the Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-20-0000135 23-SEP-2020 09:06 AMN O T F O RP U B L IC A T IO NIN W E S T ' S H AWA I # I RE P O R T S A N D P A C IF IC RE P O R T E R



### papers in support, and the record, it appears that (1) the appeal has been docketed; (2) the parties appearing in the appeal stipulate to dismiss the appeal with prejudice and bear their own attorneys' fees and costs; (3) the Stipulation is dated and signed by counsel for all parties appearing in the appeal; and (4) dismissal is authorized by Hawai # i Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 42(b).

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Stipulation is approved and the appeal is dismissed with prejudice. The parties shall bear their own attorneys' fees and costs on appeal.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, September 23, 2020. /s/ Derrick H.M. Chan Presiding Judge /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka Associate Judge /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth Associate Judge

2
#### UNCLAIMED FREIGHT, INC., a Florida corporation, and H. Kiser, a/k/a W. H. Kiser, an Individual, Appellants, v. ATLANTIC DISTRIBUTORS, INC., a corporation, Appellee.

No. 73-26.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 7, 1973.

George G. Phillips, Pensacola, for appellants.

Mark O. Cooper, of Friedman, Britton & Stettin, Orlando, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We have reviewed the briefs and record on appeal and on the basis thereof we are of the opinion that no reversible error has been made to clearly appear. Spalding v. Von Zamft, Fla.App.1965, 180 So.2d 208; Stolley & Associates, Inc. v. Lawrence, Fla.App.1971, 243 So.2d 446; Mendez v. George Hunt, Inc., Fla.App.1966, 191 So.2d 480; James A. Knowles, Inc. v. Imperial Lumber Company, Fla.App. 1970, 238 So.2d 487. We further find that the appellants’ assignments of error and brief have failed to comply with Florida Appellate Rules 3.5, subd. c and 3.7, subd. f(4), 32 F.S.A. See Redditt v. State, Fla.1955, 84 So.2d 317; Miami Investors Syndicate v. Johnnie & Mack, Inc., Fla.App.1958, 104 So.2d 617; Local Lodge Number 1248, etc. v. St. Regis Paper Co., Fla.App.1960, 125 So.2d 337; Sirmons v. Pittman, Fla.App.1962, 138 So.2d 765.

Affirmed. *

OWEN, C. J., and CROSS and MA-GER, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

RITA THOMAS; DEBRA JONES, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.  No. 02-2246

WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE,

INCORPORATED,

Defendant-Appellee. 

RITA THOMAS; DEBRA JONES, 

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.  No. 02-2292

WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE,

INCORPORATED,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.

W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge.

(CA-00-224-5-BR)

Submitted: March 20, 2003

Decided: March 27, 2003

Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 
COUNSEL

Rita Thomas; Debra Jones, Appellants Pro Se. Marylin E. Culp, KILPATRICK, STOCKTON, L.L.P., Charlotte, North Carolina, for

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

In No. 02-2246, Rita Thomas and Debra Jones seek to appeal an

order of the clerk of the district court awarding costs to Wells Fargo

Home Mortgage, Inc. (Wells Fargo), following judgment in Wells

Fargo’s favor. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1), the clerk may tax

costs to the prevailing party. Here, the clerk fixed costs in the amount

of $21,869.16, but reduced that amount by seventy-five percent based

on Thomas and Jones’s good faith and inability to pay, for a final

award of $5,467.29. In No. 02-2292, Wells Fargo cross-appealed this

reduction. 

"On motion served within 5 days thereafter, the action of the clerk

may be reviewed by the court." Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). This court

has held that failure to make a timely motion under the rule constitutes a waiver of the right to such review. Gary v. Spires, 634 F.2d

772, 773 (4th Cir. 1980). Neither party moved for review in the district court, and instead filed notices of appeal directly to this court.

Therefore, they have waived their right to review in the district court,

and there is no order subject to our review. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292

(2000). We dismiss both appeals for lack of jurisdiction. We deny

Wells Fargo’s motion for summary disposition as moot. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

2 THOMAS v. WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 23, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 67068]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33442]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Office of Arms Control and Nonproliferation Policy; Proposed 
Subsequent Arrangement

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Subsequent Arrangement.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 131 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended (42 U.S.C. 2160), notice is hereby given of a proposed 
``subsequent arrangement'' under the Agreement for Cooperation in the 
Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy Between the United States of America 
and the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM) and the Agreement 
for Cooperation Between the Government of the United States of America 
and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia Concerning Peaceful 
Uses of Nuclear Energy.
    The subsequent arrangement to be carried out under the above-
mentioned agreements involves approval of the following: RTD/IE(EU)-12 
for the transfer of 35,000 grams of uranium in the form of metal and 
oxide containing less than 7,000 grams of the isotope U-235 (19.75 
percent enrichment) from UKAEA, Dounreay, United Kingdom to Indonesia 
for manufacturing fuel elements to be used at the MPR-30 and/or RPI-10 
Research Reactor(s) in Sepong, Indonesia.
    In accordance with Section 131 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended, it has been determined that this subsequent arrangement will 
not be inimical to the common defense and security.
    This subsequent arrangement will take effect no sooner than fifteen 
days after the date of publication of this notice.

    Dated: December 17, 1997.

    For the Department of Energy.
Cherie P. Fitzgerald,
Director, International Policy and Analysis Division, Office of Arms 
Control and Nonproliferation.
[FR Doc. 97-33442 Filed 12-22-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 50612 Summary Calendar

MICHAEL KLEINMAN,
Plaintiff

- Appellant

v. CITY OF AUSTIN,
Defendant

- Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:15

- CV

- 497

Before JOLLY, COSTA , a nd HO, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: * Michael Kleinman successfully sued the City of Austin for violations of the Clean Water Act ( “ CWA ” ) . After a bench trial, the district court found that Austin violated the CWA, issued a civil penalty against the City , and award ed Kleinman attorney ’ s fees and costs. Kleinman appealed, contending that the district court made “ erroneous ” findings of fact and conclusions of law. As a

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 25, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-50612 Document: 00514809523 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/25/2019No. 18

- 50612

2 result, Kleinman asserts the district court awarded the wrong relief and too little in attorney ’ s fees. Because Kleinman did not timely appeal the district court ’ s judgment, we DISMISS his appeal of the judgment and AFFIRM the district court ’ s attorney ’ s - fee s award. First, Kleinman did not timely appeal the judgment on the merits and thus cannot cont est the relief the district court granted in its final judgment. FRAP 4(a)(1)(1)(A) requires litigants to file a notice of appeal “ within 30 days after entry of the judgment or order appealed from

. ” The district court entered judgment on March 6, 2018. Kleinman moved for attorney ’ s fees on March 20, which the court awarded on June 26. Kleinman appealed both the judgment and the fees award on July 23

— over four months late for the judgment on the merits

. And c ontrary to Kleinman ’ s arguments, “ [m]otions a ddressing costs and attorney ’ s fees .

. . are considered collateral to the judgment, and do not toll the time period for filing an appeal

. ” Moody Nat ’ l Bank of Galveston v. GE Life & Annuity Assur. Co. , 383 F.3d 249, 250 (5th Cir. 2004) (emphasis added) (citing F ED

. R. C IV

. P 54(d)). See also Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co. , 486 U.S. 196, 200 (1988)

. Second, Kleinman cannot demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion when it awarded att orney ’ s fees . He argues t hat the district court erred by basing its award on “ erroneous ” factual findings and conclusions of law. At bottom , his attorney ’ s - fees argument rises and falls with his merits argument

. And because Kleinman has failed to presen t the merits to this court , he has also failed to present a meritorious argument that the district court abused its discretion. We DISMISS his appeal of the judgment and AFFIRM the attorney ’ s fees award

. Case: 18-50612 Document: 00514809523 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/25/2019
```

[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 243 (Thursday, December 18, 1997)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 66255]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33234]



                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 1997 / 
Presidential Documents

[[Page 66255]]

                Presidential Determination No. 98-8 of December 5, 1997

                
Presidential Determination on Waiver and 
                Certification of Statutory Provisions Regarding the 
                Palestine Liberation Organization

                Memorandum for the Secretary of State

                Pursuant to the authority vested in me under section 
                539(d) of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and 
                Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1998, Public Law 
                105-118, I hereby determine and certify that it is 
                important to the national security interests of the 
                United States to waive the provisions of section 1003 
                of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987, Public Law 100-204, 
                through June 4, 1998.

                You are authorized and directed to transmit this 
                determination to the Congress and to publish it in the 
                Federal Register.

                    (Presidential Sig.)

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    Washington, December 5, 1997.

[FR Doc. 97-33234
Filed 12-17-97; 8:45 am]
Billing code 4710-10-M
```
#### STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Ralph KIRLIS, Respondent.

No. 42454.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 6, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 15, 1972.

Certiorari denied. 262 So.2d 713.

ERVIN, CARLTON, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ADKINS, J., dissent.
<PAGE>
<PAGE> 19

                                                             Exhibit 12

<TABLE>
              AMERICAN GENERAL FINANCE, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
             Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                                (Unaudited)


<CAPTION>
                                                   Three Months Ended   
                                                        March 31,      
                                                   1998          1997  
                                                 (dollars in thousands)
<S>                                              <C>           <C>
Earnings:

  Income before provision for income
    taxes                                        $ 71,129      $ 61,697
  Interest expense (including $12,447 
    for 1997 to fund assets held for
    sale)                                         121,702       125,278 
  Implicit interest in rents                        2,819         2,822

Total earnings                                   $195,650      $189,797

Fixed charges:

  Interest expense (including $12,447 
    for 1997 to fund assets held for
    sale)                                        $121,702      $125,278 
  Implicit interest in rents                        2,819         2,822

Total fixed charges                              $124,521      $128,100


Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                   1.57          1.48
</TABLE>
<PAGE>
Order entered November 25 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 15
- 00541
- CR SANTANA GAONA, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F11
- 61227
- V



### O RDER
The Court ORDERS the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and recommendations and determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, whether appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. See
T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8( b ). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the
trial court sha ll conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State , 742 S.W.2d 708 (Tex. App.

– Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective rep resentation, which may include appointment of new counsel.We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include

written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order. This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are received, whichever is earlier.
/s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE