alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT
32.2
 SECTION
1350 CERTIFICATIONS
 
 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 Exobox Technologies Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended January 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael
G. Wirtz, 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 Date:
March 23, 2009
 
 
 /s/MichaelG.Wirtz
 Chief
Financial Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

APOLONIO SAENZ-SANCHEZ, et al., 

Petitioners, 

 v. 

MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting 

Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 17-73493 

Agency Nos. A208-160-335 

A208-160-336 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 15, 2019

**

Before: TROTT, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Apolonio Saenz-Sanchez and his daughter, natives and citizens of El 

Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order 

dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their 

application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 

 

* 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

JAN 17 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-73493 

Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We 

review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 

453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we review de novo claims of due 

process violations in immigration proceedings, Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 

(9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.

Petitioners contend they have suffered harm and fear harm because of their 

membership in several particular social groups. Substantial evidence supports the 

agency’s determination that petitioners failed to establish that any harm they 

experienced or fear in El Salvador was or would be on account of a protected 

ground. See Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if 

membership in a particular social group is established, an applicant must still show 

that “persecution was or will be on account of his membership in such group” 

(emphasis in original)); see also Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 

2010) (applicant’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by 

theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). 

Thus, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. 

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because 

petitioners failed to show it is more likely than not they would be tortured by or 
3 17-73493 

with the consent or acquiescence of the government of El Salvador. See Aden v. 

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

Finally, we reject petitioners’ contention that the BIA violated their due 

process rights. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring 

error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### Munrow WOODARD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4-86-2091.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 22, 1987.

Munrow Woodard, Olustee, pro. se.

Robert A. Butterworth, Jr., Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Amy L. Diem, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Reversed and remanded with directions that the trial court either attach portions of the record affirmatively demonstrating that appellant is not entitled to relief, or that the trial court conduct an evidentiary hearing on appellant’s petition.

HERSEY, C.J., and ANSTEAD and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2440 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on marine sextants of metal 

designed for use in navigating by celestial bodies. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. BROWNBACK 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 marine sextants of metal designed for use in navigating by celestial 

bodies. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. MARINE SEXTANTS OF METAL. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.22.81 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 marine sextants of metal designed for use in navigating 

7 by celestial bodies) is amended by striking the date in the 

8 effective period column and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

10 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2440 IS

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Petitioner**

**v.**

**LERONE BRUNSON,**

**Respondent :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 586 EAL 2015** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**LERONE BRUNSON,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 587 EAL 2015** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 17 th**  **day of December, 2015, the Commonwealth’s Petition f or** 

**Allowance of Appeal is** HELD **pending our disposition of Commonwealth v. Wolfe, 68**

**MAP 2015 and Commonwealth v. Barnes, 36 EAP 2015, an d Lerone Brunson’s Petition** 

**for Allowance of Appeal is** DENIED

**.**
#### Velma A. MELINDER, Appellee, v. SOUTHLANDS DEVELOPMENT, INC., Appellant.

No. 63619.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Nov. 25, 1985.

DECISION BY ORDER

The Court has thoroughly reviewed the record in this action together with the briefs and concludes that this appeal is patently frivolous, wholly without merit and filed only for purpose of delay.

The Court takes judicial knowledge of the previous appeal filed in this continuing litigation, *Heathmore Co. Inc. v. Velma Melinder,*No. 62,153, affirmed by summary opinion on June 4,1985. The Court is cognizant of the frivolous nature of that appeal.

The Court agrees with appellee’s suggestion that this appeal is brought in bad faith and only for the oppressive purpose of delay. The Court is convinced that reasonable minds could not differ about that conclusion.

The Court therefore taxes as costs attorney fees in favor of appellee and against appellant, for defending this frivolous and vexatious appeal. However, we remand the sole issue of attorney’s fees to the trial court for the taking of evidence and fixing the amount of appeal-related fees. *City Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Owens,*Okl., 565 P.2d 4 (1977). See also, 20 O.S.Supp.1982, § 15.1.

No reversible error of law appears and the judgment is affirmed under rule 1.202(a), 12 O.S.Supp. 1984, Ch. 15, App. 2.

AFFIRMED, BUT REMANDED FOR LIMITED PURPOSE.

SIMMS, C.J., DOOLIN, V.C.J., and HODGES, LAVENDER, HARGRAVE, OPALA and SUMMERS, JJ., concur.

WILSON and KAUGER, JJ., concur in result.
Exhibit 32.2





Certification of Principal Financial Officer


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 SRKP 5, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Anthony C. Pintsopoulos, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my 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 Company.





/s/ Anthony C. PintsopoulosAnthony C. PintsopoulosPrincipal Financial OfficerMay 11, 2011
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2446 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2446

    To extend the temporary reduction of duty on rubber basketballs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

    Mr. Kerry (for himself, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Bunning, and Mr. Ensign) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                          Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To extend the temporary reduction of duty on rubber basketballs.

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

SECTION 1. RUBBER BASKETBALLS.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.13.09 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to rubber basketballs) is 
amended by striking ``12/31/2009'' 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>
```
Exhibit 31.2

I, David W. Whitwell, certify that:

1.   I  have  reviewed  this  annual  report  on  Form  10-K  of  Clean  Diesel
Technologies,  Inc.;

2.   Based  on  my  knowledge,  this  annual  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 annual
report;

3.   Based  on  my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and other financial
information  included  in  this  annual  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 annual report;

4.   The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and  I  are responsible for
establishing  and  maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange  Act  Rules  13a-14  and  15d-14)  for  the  registrant  and  have:

a)   designed  such  disclosure  controls and procedures 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  annual  report  is  being  prepared;

b)   evaluated  the  effectiveness  of  the  registrants disclosure controls and
procedures  as  of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual
report  (the  "Evaluation  Date");  and

c)   presented  in this annual report our conclusions about effectiveness of the
disclosure  controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation
date;

5.   The  registrant's  other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee
of  registrant's  board  of  directors  (or  persons  performing  the equivalent
functions);

a)   all  significant  deficiencies  in  the  design  or  operation  of internal
controls  which  could  adversely  affect  the  registrant's  ability to record,
process,  summarize  and  report  financial  data  and  have  identified for the
registrant's  auditors  any  material  weakness  in  internal  controls;  and

b)   any  fraud,  whether  or  not  material,  that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6.   The  registrants  other  certifying  officers  and I have indicated in this
annual  report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or in
other  factors  that  could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the  date  of  our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard  to  significant  deficiencies  and  material  weaknesses.

Date:  March 29, 2004   By:  /s/ David W. Whitwell
                             ---------------------
                             David W. Whitwell
                             Chief Financial Officer, Vice Present and Treasurer


<PAGE>
Exhibit 21.1

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

|Entity Name                                  |  | State of Organization
|-------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------
|HEARST-ARGYLE STATIONS, INC.                 |  | NEVADA               
|WAPT HEARST-ARGYLE TELEVISION, INC.          |  | CALIFORNIA           
|KHBS HEARST-ARGYLE TELEVISION, INC.          |  | CALIFORNIA           
|KMBC HEARST-ARGYLE TELEVISION, INC.          |  | CALIFORNIA           
|WBAL HEARST-ARGYLE TELEVISION, INC.          |  | CALIFORNIA           
|WCVB HEARST-ARGYLE TELEVISION, INC.          |  | CALIFORNIA           
|WISN HEARST-ARGYLE TELEVISION, INC.          |  | CALIFORNIA           
|WTAE HEARST-ARGYLE TELEVISION, INC.          |  | CALIFORNIA           
|OHIO/OKLAHOMA HEARST-ARGYLE TELEVISION, INC. |  | NEVADA               
|JACKSON HEARST-ARGYLE TELEVISION, INC.       |  | DELAWARE             
|ARKANSAS HEARST-ARGYLE TELEVISION, INC.      |  | DELAWARE             
|HEARST-ARGYLE SPORTS, INC.                   |  | DELAWARE             
|HEARST-ARGYLE PROPERTIES, INC.               |  | DELAWARE             
|HATV INVESTMENTS, INC.                       |  | DELAWARE             
|DES MOINES HEARST-ARGYLE TELEVISION, INC.    |  | DELAWARE             
|ORLANDO HEARST-ARGYLE TELEVISION, INC.       |  | DELAWARE             
|NEW ORLEANS HEARST-ARGYLE TELEVISION, INC.   |  | DELAWARE             
|WYFF HEARST-ARGYLE TELEVISION, INC.          |  | CALIFORNIA           
|WXII HEARST-ARGYLE TELEVISION, INC.          |  | CALIFORNIA           
|KOAT HEARST-ARGYLE TELEVISION, INC.          |  | CALIFORNIA           
|WLKY HEARST-ARGYLE TELEVISION, INC.          |  | CALIFORNIA           
|KETV HEARST-ARGYLE TELEVISION, INC.          |  | CALIFORNIA           
|WGAL HEARST-ARGYLE TELEVISION, INC.          |  | CALIFORNIA           
|HEARST-ARGYLE CAPITAL TRUST                  |  | DELAWARE             

---



QuickLinks
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 Majestic Oil & Gas Inc. (the "Company")
      on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending September 30, 2007, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Patrick
      Montalban, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
      certify to the best of my knowledge, 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, another
      document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature
      that
      appears in typed form within the electronic version 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/
                Patrick MontalbanPatrick
                MontalbanChief Executive OfficerChief Financial OfficerNovember
                9, 2007
#### Arthur BARTOLOZZI, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 7222.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Jan. 4, 1940.

L. Scott Cherchesky, of Camden, N. J., for appellant.

John J. Quinn, U. S. Atty., of Trenton, N. J., and W. Orvyl Schalick, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Camden, N. J., for appellee.

Before BIGGS, MARIS, and CLARK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2249 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2249

     To extend the temporary suspension of duty on S-Bioallethrin.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

Mrs. Feinstein 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 S-Bioallethrin.

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

SECTION 1. S-BIOALLETHRIN.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.24.33 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to S-Bioallethrin) is amended 
by striking ``12/31/2009'' and inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect 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>
```
#### DANTZLER LUMBER AND EXPORT COMPANY, Appellant, v. William R. DEFREITAS and Patricia Defreitas, Appellees.

No. 87-3085.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 14, 1989.

Raymond A. Reiser of Rice & Reiser, and James C. Blecke, Miami, for appellant.

Jane Kreusler-Walsh and Larry Klein of Klein, Beranek & Walsh, P.A., and Peterson Fogerty & Bernard, West Palm Beach, for appellees.

STONE, Judge.

This is an appeal by an employer from a final judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff, a former employee, for breach of an employment agreement.

The employer contends that the trial court erred by failing to direct a verdict against the plaintiff because he had signed a resignation and because there was evidence that he lied at the time of his employment interview concerning the reason for his discharge from a previous employment. The plaintiff contends that his resignation was involuntary and made under duress when he was fired and advised that the appellant would only reconsider the discharge if the employee formally resigned.

Generally an employee who elects to resign gives up his right to sue for breach of contract. But a resignation that is involuntary because of duress is voidable. *See Mullan v. Bishop of the Diocese of Orlando,*540 So.2d 174 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); *McLaughlin v. State, Department of Natural Resources,*526 So.2d 934 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). *See also City of Miami v. Kory,*394 So.2d 494 (Fla. 3d DCA), *rev. denied,*407 So.2d 1104 (Fla.1981).

*1136We have examined the record and conclude that there was sufficient evidentiary-support for the trial court’s decision to submit all issues to the jury. We recognize that there was substantial evidence supporting the employer’s contention that the employment contract was fraudulently induced. However, this evidence was contested, disputed and, to some extent, impeached by plaintiff’s evidence. The conflicting testimony was for the jury to resolve. The plaintiff was entitled to have all evidence viewed in a light favorable to him as the non-moving party, and to have all conflicts resolved in his favor. *See, e.g., Collins v. School Board of Broward County,*471 So.2d 560 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).

Therefore, the final judgment is affirmed.

HERSEY, C.J., and WARNER, J., concur.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. James Reginald FAUSPHOUL.

No. 88-KH-0046.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 29, 1988.

In re Fausphoul, James Reginald; applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court, Div. “B”, No. 211918; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KW87-1095.

Denied. There is no error in the rulings of the district court or the court of appeal.