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

CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Triple Crown Media, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarterly period ended December 31, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the Report), the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his individual knowledge and belief:



|(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 Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: May 14, 2008



|        |  |                                                     
|------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Signed: |  | /s/ MARK G. MEIKLE                                  
|        |  | Mark G. Meikle                                      
|        |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed for purposes
of Section 18 pf the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, regardless of any general incorporation language in said filing.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Marlene Sierre, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward McLaughlin, J.), rendered March 1, 1989, convicting defendant, on her plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, and sentencing her to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of *4lá*years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant sold a kilogram of cocaine to an undercover police officer on November 9, 1987. On November 23, 1987, defendant met the undercover officer again and arranged for the sale of five kilograms of cocaine the following day. On November 24, defendant, who was in possession of additional quantities of cocaine, was arrested along with an accomplice. Defendant subsequently pleaded guilty as set forth above in full satisfaction of the indictment.

Defendant’s claims on appeal that she received ineffective assistance of counsel, and that she is innocent, are unpreserved as a matter of law, as defendant failed to make a motion to withdraw her plea pursuant to CPL 220.60. In any event, these claims are wholly unsupported by the record, which indicates that defendant’s decision to plead guilty was rationally based, in view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt. Concur—Carro, J. P., Milonas, Asch, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.
# L_2006261EN.01002201.xml

| 22.9.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 261/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 261/22

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1397/2006

of 21 September 2006

concerning tenders notified in response to the invitation to tender for the export of barley issued in Regulation (EC) No 935/2006

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of barley to certain third countries was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 935/2006 (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of barley to certain third countries was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 935/2006 (2).

| (2) | Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (3), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (3), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,

| (3) | On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95, a maximum refund should not be fixed. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95, a maximum refund should not be fixed.

| (4) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

No action shall be taken on the tenders notified from 15 to 21 September 2006 in response to the invitation to tender for the refund for the export of barley issued in Regulation (EC) No 935/2006.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 22 September 2006.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 21 September 2006.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78. Regulation as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1154/2005 (OJ L 187, 19.7.2005, p. 11).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 172, 24.6.2006, p. 3.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 147, 30.6.1995, p. 7. Regulation as last modified by Regulation (EC) No 777/2004 (OJ L 123, 27.4.2004, p. 50).

3

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IGNACIO CEDILLO BARCENAS ; MARIA DEL CARMEN ESTRADA DE CEDILLO,

Petitioners,

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 14

- 70174

Agency Nos. A073

- 935

- 612

A073

- 935

- 619

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 24

, 2016 **

Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ , and RAWLINSON , Circuit Judges.

Ignacio Cedillo Barcenas and Mari a Del Carmen Estrada De Cedillo, natives

and citizens of Mexico , petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’

(“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 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 3 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K
U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 14

- 70174

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the B IA’s

denial of a motion to reopen, Cano

- Merida v. INS , 31 1 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.

2002) , and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ second motion

to reopen as untimely and number

- barr ed because the motion was filed over four

years after the BIA’s final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners

failed to establish materially changed circumstances in Mexico to qualify for the

regulatory exception to the time limitations for motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. §

1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi v. Holder , 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir.2010) (evidence

lacked materiality because it simply recounted “generalized conditions” in count ry

that did not show petitioner’ s situation was “appreciably different from the dangers

faced by her fellow citizens”)

. Further, we reject petitioners’ contention s that the

BIA failed to consider arguments or record evidence, see Najmabadi , 597 F .3d at

990

- 91 (BIA adequately considered evidence and sufficiently announced its

decision).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED

.
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-11-0000387 20-SEP-2013 08:29 AM
Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Rule 13a- 14(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
      (a)
    
    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;(b)
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control
over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles;(c)
    
    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 the report based on such evaluation;
and(d)
    
    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
  (a)
    
    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(b)
    
    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.
  /s/ BRIAN C. HENRYBrian C. HenryChief Financial Officer
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 4.3

NUMBER       INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA      SHARES
                                NOVEMBER 1, 1978

                           JERRY'S FAMOUS DELI, INC.

60,000,000 SHARES COMMON STOCK                  5,000,000 SHARES PREFERRED STOCK
      NO PAR VALUE                                         NO PAR VALUE

THIS CERTIFIES THAT,                    _______________________IS THE REGISTERED

HOLDER OF_______________________________SHARES OF THE SERIES B CONVERTIBLE
                                        PREFERRED STOCK OF

                           JERRY'S FAMOUS DELI, INC.

HEREINAFTER DESIGNATED "THE CORPORATION," TRANSFERABLE ON THE SHARE REGISTER OF
THE CORPORATION UPON SURRENDER OF THIS CERTIFICATE PROPERLY ENDORSED OR
ASSIGNED.

        This certificate and the shares represented thereby shall be subject to
all of the provisions of the Articles of Incorporation and the By-laws of said
Corporation, a copy of each of which is on file at the office of the
Corporation, and made a part hereof as fully as though the provisions of said
Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws were imprinted in full on this
certificate, to all of which the holder of this certificate, by acceptance
hereof, assents and agrees to be bound.

        Any shareholder may obtain from the principal office of the Corporation,
upon request and without charge, a statement of the number of shares
constituting each class or series of stock and the designation thereof; and a
copy of the rights, preferences, privileges, and restrictions granted to or
imposed upon the respective classes or series of stock and upon the holders
thereof by said Articles of Incorporation and the By-Laws.

                      WITNESS THE SEAL OF THE CORPORATION
              AND THE SIGNATURES OF ITS DULY AUTHORIZED OFFICERS.
                                     [SEAL]

DATED:



------------------------------------    ---------------------------------------
                           SECRETARY                                  PRESIDENT
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 22

- 11150 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus
**Ramiro Medina**

**- Gomez,**  Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:20

- CR

- 190

- 1

**______________________________** Before **Willett, Duncan,** and **Douglas,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *****
The attorney appointed to represent Ramiro Medina

- Gomez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Medina

- Gomez has filed a response , in which he challenges his guilty plea and sentence arguing, inter alia, that he pleaded guilty based

**_____________________**

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir**

**. R** 

**.** 47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED September 5, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-11150 Document: 00516884263 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/05/2023No. 22

- 11150

2 on counsel’s erroneous advice regarding the applicable guidelines range and that counsel failed to respond to his request to withdraw his gui lty plea

. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Medina

- Gomez’s claim that counsel failed to respond to his request to withdraw his guilty plea. W e therefore decline to consider the claim without prejudice to it being raised on collateral review. See United States v. Isgar , 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014). We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Medina

- Gomez ’s response . We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counse l’s motion for leave to withdraw is **GRANTED** , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is **DISMISSED**

. See **5th Cir. R**

**.** 42.2. Case: 22-11150 Document: 00516884263 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/05/2023
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1875 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1875

         To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Orgasol.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 26, 2009

   Mr. Casey introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
         To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Orgasol.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. ORGASOL.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.39.08 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to Orgasol) is amended by 
striking the date in the effective period column and inserting ``12/31/
2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
# L_2006047EN.01004301.xml

| 17.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 47/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 47/43

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 283/2006

of 16 February 2006

concerning tenders notified in response to the invitation to tender for the import of sorghum issued in Regulation (EC) No 2094/2005

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003, on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 12(1) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | An invitation to tender for the maximum reduction from third countries in the duty on sorghum imported into Spain was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2094/2005 (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

An invitation to tender for the maximum reduction from third countries in the duty on sorghum imported into Spain was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2094/2005 (2).

| (2) | Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1839/95 (3), allows the Commission to decide, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 and on the basis of the tenders notified to make no award. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1839/95 (3), allows the Commission to decide, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 and on the basis of the tenders notified to make no award.

| (3) | On the basis of the criteria laid down in Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1839/95 a maximum reduction in the duty should not be fixed. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

On the basis of the criteria laid down in Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1839/95 a maximum reduction in the duty should not be fixed.

| (4) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

No action shall be taken on the tenders notified from 10 to 16 February 2006 in response to the invitation to tender for the reduction in the duty on imported sorghum issued in Regulation (EC) No 2094/2005.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 17 February 2006.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 16 February 2006.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78. Regulation as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1154/2005 (OJ L 187, 19.7.2005 p. 11).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 335, 21.12.2005, p. 4.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 177, 28.7.1995, p. 4. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1558/2005 (OJ L 249, 24.9.2005, p. 6).

3

---
**Exhibit 10.5**

AMENDMENT NO. 4 

TO THE 

ADVISORY AGREEMENT 

This amendment no. 4 to the Advisory Agreement dated as of November 8, 2008 (the“Advisory Agreement”) between KBS Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc., a Maryland corporation (the “Company”), and KBS Capital Advisors LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Advisor”), is entered as of April24, 2009 (the “Amendment”). Capitalized terms used herein but not defined shall have the meaning set forth in the Advisory Agreement and Amendment no. 1 to the Advisory Agreement dated January 7, 2009. 

WHEREAS, upon the terms set forth in this Amendment, the Advisor has agreed to amend and restate Article 16 of the Advisory Agreement and advance fundsto the Company upon the terms set forth below. 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and of the mutual covenants andagreements contained herein, the parties hereto agree that Article 16 of the Advisory Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows: 

ADVANCE 

Notwithstanding anything contained in Article 9 of this Agreement to the contrary, the Advisorhereby agrees to advance funds (the “Advance”) to the Company equal to the amount by which the cumulative amount of distributions declared by the Company from January 1, 2006 through the period ending May 31, 2009 exceeds the amount of theCompany’s Funds from Operations from January 1, 2006 through May 31, 2009. Advisor further agrees that the Company will only be obligated to reimburse the Advisor for the Advance if and to the extent that the Company’s cumulative Fundsfrom Operations for the period commencing January 1, 2006 through the date of any such reimbursement exceeds the lesser of (i) the cumulative amount of any distributions declared and payable to the Company’s Stockholders as of the date of suchreimbursement or (ii) an amount that is equal to a 7.0% cumulative, non-compounded, annual return on Invested Capital for the Company’s Stockholders for the period from July 18, 2006 through the date of such reimbursement. Advisor understandsand agrees that no interest shall accrue on the Advance being made under this Agreement. 

*Signature page follows.*

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the date and year first abovewritten. 

 
KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.    By:     /s/ Charles J. Schreiber, Jr. Charles J. Schreiber, Jr., Chief Executive OfficerKBS CAPITAL ADVISORS LLC    By: 
Schreiber Real Estate Investments, L.P., a

Manager

 

By:   
 
Schreiber Investments, LLC, as general

partner
 By:     /s/ Charles J. Schreiber, Jr.  Charles J. Schreiber, Jr., Manager
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND THE STATEMENT OF INCOME
FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>            1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           12759
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    92192
<ALLOWANCES>                                      2204
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                225569
<PP&E>                                          188009
<DEPRECIATION>                                   90205
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1044482
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                         490000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          2
<COMMON>                                           538
<OTHER-SE>                                      326114
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1044482
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                333661
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                214676
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               32484
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  86501
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              51138
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (16212)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     34926
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.77
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.77
        

</TABLE>