alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of ATEL Capital Equipment Fund XI, LLC (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Dean L. Cash, President and Chief Executive Officer of ATEL Financial Services, LLC, Managing Member of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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: August 12, 2008



|                                              
|----------------------------------------------
|/s/ Dean L. Cash                              
|Dean L. Cash                                  
|President and Chief Executive Officer of      
|ATEL Financial Services, LLC (Managing Member)

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.
# L_2012112EN.01002101.xml

| 24.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 112/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 112/6

---

ACT

ACT

concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Croatia and the adjustments to the Treaty on European Union, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community

PART FOUR

TEMPORARY PROVISIONS

TEMPORARY PROVISIONS

TITLE IV

OTHER PROVISIONS

OTHER PROVISIONS

Article 38

If Croatia fails to fulfil commitments undertaken in the context of the accession negotiations, including commitments in any sectoral policy which concerns economic activities with a cross-border effect, thereby causing a serious breach of the functioning of the internal market or a threat to the Union's financial interests or an imminent risk of such a breach or threat, the Commission may, until the end of a period of up to three years after accession, upon reasoned request of a Member State or on its own initiative, take appropriate measures.

These measures shall be proportionate and priority shall be given to measures which least disturb the functioning of the internal market and, where appropriate, to the application of the existing sectoral safeguard mechanisms. The safeguard measures under this Article shall not be invoked as a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between Member States. The safeguard clause may be invoked even before accession on the basis of the monitoring findings and the measures adopted shall enter into force on the date of accession unless they provide for a later date. The measures shall be maintained no longer than strictly necessary and, in any case, shall be lifted when the relevant commitment has been fulfilled. They may, however, be applied beyond the period referred to in the first paragraph as long as the relevant commitments have not been fulfilled. In response to progress made by Croatia in fulfilling its commitments, the Commission may adapt the measures as appropriate. The Commission shall inform the Council in good time before revoking the safeguard measures, and it shall take duly into account any observations of the Council in this respect.

---
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

IN RE: CHRISTOPHER HARDY, R. NEAL POST,

Appellants

______________________ 

2014-1577

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 29/268,198.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

PERRY J. SAIDMAN, Saidman DesignLaw Group, Silver 

Spring, MD, argued for appellants. 

BRIAN THOMAS RACILLA, Office of the Solicitor, United 

States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, 

argued for appellee Michelle K. Lee. Also represented by 

NATHAN K. KELLEY, WILLIAM LAMARCA, THOMAS W.

KRAUSE. 

______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 
 

 PER CURIAM (NEWMAN, CLEVENGER, and O’MALLEY,

Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

April 17, 2015 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole

Date Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Clerk of Court
# C_2016203EN.01003901.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 203/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 203/39

---

Article 105

The provisions of this Treaty shall not be invoked so as to prevent the implementation of agreements or contracts concluded before 1 January 1958 or, for acceding States, before the date of their accession, by a Member State, a person or an undertaking with a third State, an international organisation or a national of a third State where such agreements or contracts have been communicated to the Commission not later than 30 days after the aforesaid dates.

Agreements or contracts concluded between 25 March 1957 and 1 January 1958 or, for acceding States, between the signature of the instrument of accession and the date of their accession, by a person or an undertaking with a third State, an international organisation or a national of a third State shall not, however, be invoked as grounds for failure to implement this Treaty if, in the opinion of the Court of Justice of the European Union, ruling on an application from the Commission, one of the decisive reasons on the part of either of the parties in concluding the agreement or contract was an intention to evade the provisions of this Treaty.

---
1 NOT FOR PUBLICATION

2

3 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

4

5 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

6

7

8 YERLI MAURICIO MONCADA LOPEZ,

9

10 Petitioner,

11

12 v.

13

14 ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

15

16 Respondent.

17

No. 11-70009

Agency No. A088-964-256

MEMORANDUM*

18

19 On Petition for Review of an Order of the

20 Board of Immigration Appeals

21

Submitted April 7, 2015** 22

23

24 Before: FISHER, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

25

26 Yerli Mauricio Moncada Lopez, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions

27 pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing

28 his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for

29 asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against

FILED

APR 17 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * 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).
1 Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

2 substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d

3 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the petition for review. 

4 The record does not compel the conclusion that Moncada Lopez established

5 changed circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. §

6 1208.4(a); see also Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1487 (9th Cir. 1997) (to reverse

7 the agency’s decision, petitioner must show that the evidence compels this

8 conclusion).

9 Moncada Lopez argued to the agency that he established past persecution

10 and a fear of future persecution from gang members on account of his political

11 opinion and membership in a particular social group consisting of his family.

12 Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Moncada Lopez failed to

13 establish past persecution or that it is more likely than not he would be persecuted

14 on account of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th

15 Cir. 2010) (“An alien’s desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated

16 by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected

17 ground.”). Thus, Moncada Lopez’s withholding of removal claim fails. 

18 Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief

19 because Moncada Lopez failed to establish it is more likely than not that he would

2 11-70009
1 be tortured with the consent or acquiescence of the Honduran government if

2 returned to Honduras. See Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1034 (9th Cir.

3 2014) (general ineffectiveness in preventing or investigating criminal activities

4 does not raise an inference that public officials are likely to acquiesce in torture). 

5 PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 11-70009
The Company has entered  into an  agreement  not yet reduced to writing
with Ramakant Agarwal,  Director,  Chief Financial  Officer,  Vice President and
Secretary  of the  Company  and Vice  President,  Chief  Financial  Officer  and
Secretary of Windsor in  consideration of his past services to Windsor and as an
inducement  to remain in the  employ of  Windsor,  since the stock of Windsor is
security for the Note referred to in Exhibit 10.2. Pursuant to the agreement the
Company has agreed to pay Mr. Agarwal the following:

         (a) $100,000 cash;

         (b) 4.5% of all payments  made by  Interiors,  Inc. to the Company with
respect  to the  Note  described  in  Exhibit  10.2,  which  Note is  valued  at
$1,500,000; and,

         (c) 100,000 shares of Interiors, Inc. Class A Common Stock.

When the  agreement  is reduced to writing,  transfer of the  Interiors  Class A
Common Stock will be restricted  and none of the rights under the agreement will
be assignable without the Company's consent.  The restriction and non-assignment
provisions  will be  substantially  similar to those of  Sections 5 and 7 of the
Bonus  Agreement  with Pauline  Raschella,  which is attached as Exhibit  10.12.
# C_2016202EN.01006101.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/61

---

Article 33

(ex Article 135 TEC)

(ex Article 135 TEC)

Within the scope of application of the Treaties, the European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall take measures in order to strengthen customs cooperation between Member States and between the latter and the Commission.

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OFTHE STATE OF MONTANA DA 19-0492 PARK COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL and GREATER YELLOWSTONE COALITION,

Plaintiffsand Appellees, v. MONTANA DEPARTMENT OFENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY and LUCKY MINERALS,INC.,

Defendantsand Appellants, and STATE OF MONTANA,

by and throughthe Office ofthe Attomey General,

Intervenorand Appellant. 

# FILED MAY 

## 1 9 2020 Bowen Greenwooa Clerk of Suprerne Court State of Montana ORDER

Having considered the parties' briefs and reviewed the record in this matter, the Courtrequests supplemental briefing on the following questions: Does the Congressional withdrawal of federal lands in the Emigrant Crevice Area require the District Court to reconsider its order in 2018 granting summary judgment? Does the withdrawal require DEQ to conduct a new MEPA analysis taking into consideration the actions ofthe United States Congress? How does the withdrawal impact Lucky's ability to conduct road improvements to allow access of its mining equipment, given that such improvements would take place on Forest Service roads within the withdrawal area? IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties are directed to file simultaneous supplemental briefs within thirty days ofthe date ofthis Order addressing the issues set forth above. Each party's briefshall be limited to 5,000 words. 05/19/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0492The Clerk is qizted to provide copies ofthis Order to all counsel ofrecord.

Dated this I S day ofMay,2020. For the Court,
ChiefJustice

2
Section 32 Solicitation

for Citrus (PILOT) 

Oranges, Mandarins and Grapefruit – January 2023
Supply Chain must have food 

safety certification

• Grow

• Harvest

• Pack

• Hold

• Handle
Desk Audits 

GFSI Benchmarked 

• Primary Production Standards

• GlobalGAP Integrated Farm Assurance Scheme Version 5

• GlobalGAP Produce Safety Standard Version 4

• GlobalGAP Harmonized Produce Safety Standard

• CanadaGAP Version 6 Options B, C, D and Program management Manual 

Version 6 or Version 7.1

• SQF Code 7th or 8th Edition

• Primus GFS Standard v 2.1 or 3 
Desk Audits

GFSI Benchmarked (continued)

• Packinghouse/Facility Standards

• GlobalGAP Integrated Farm Assurance Scheme Version 5

• GlobalGAP produce Safety Standard Version 4

• GlobalGAP Harmonized Produce Safety Standard

• CanadaGAP Version 6 or 7.1 Options B, C, D and program management manual Version 6

• SQF Code 7th or 8th Edition

• Primus GFS Standard v 2.1 or 3

• FSSC 22000 October 2011

• IFS Food Standard Version 6

• BRC Global Standard for Food Safety Issue 7
What to submit for a 

desk audit

Audit Report

Audit Certificate

Completed Corrective Action Report, if not included in audit report

Domestic Origin Statement

Other documentation and records as requested
#### Marvin Wayne HUSKE, Appellant, v. MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE, Appellee.

No. 3713.

Supreme Court of Alaska.

July 28, 1978.

William H. Jacobs, Jacobs, Branson & Guetschow, Anchorage, for appellant.

Laura L. Davis, Municipal Intern, Allen M. Bailey, Municipal Pros, and Theodore D. Berns, Municipal Atty., Anchorage, for ap-pellee.

OPINION

Before BOOCHEVER, C. J., and RABI-NOWITZ, CONNOR, BURKE and MATTHEWS, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

After trial by jury in the district court, appellant Marvin Huske was convicted of the separate offenses of driving while intoxicated and leaving the scene of an accident.1 Huske appealed his conviction to the superior court without success.

In his appeal to this court, Huske contends that he should be granted a new trial because of the district court’s refusal to give a requested jury instruction relating to the bias of the primary witnesses for the prosecution.2 Our study of the record has convinced us that this appeal is devoid of merit. The potential bias of the witnesses was illuminated for the jury’s consideration through defense counsel’s cross-examination of prosecution witnesses and his final argument. Given the foregoing and the fact that the district court properly instructed the jury concerning the criteria they should consider in determining the credibility of witnesses,3 we hold that the *505district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to give the requested bias instruction.4

The superior court’s affirmance of the district court’s judgment is Affirmed.

1

. *See*Anchorage Code of Ordinances §§ 9.10.-020 and 9.28.020.

2

. The requested instruction reads:

> In evaluating the credibility of witnesses, you may consider reasons due to which witnesses may be biased. In the event the defendant is convicted of driving while intoxicated, the judgment of conviction would be proof of negligence in any action for damages arising out of the collision.

In *Scott v. Robertson,*583 P.2d 188 (Alaska 1978), we discussed the effect of a prior conviction for driving while intoxicated on a subsequent civil negligence action.

3

. The district court’s instruction relating to witness credibility was as follows:

> You are the sole judges of the credibility of the witnesses and of the weight to be given to the testimony of each of them. In determining the credit to be given any witness you may take into account his ability and opportunity to observe, his memory, his manner while testifying, any interest, bias or prejudice he may have, and the reasonableness of his testimony considered in the light of all the evidence in the case.

> A witness willfully false in one part of his testimony may be distrusted in others.

4

. Whether or not a particular instruction should be given is in the discretion of the trial court. *Buchanan v. State,*561 P.2d 1197, 1207 (Alaska 1977). See Alaska R. Crim. P. 30.
AVxd Ato^fl dletk

j— .vjvA-y o i>_-o«<A.f-vj^-., .>

RECEIVED IN

COURTOFCRIMINAL APPEALS

APR 16 2015

-AbsJAG0Sta7GSerk4-13-iS

-£g^sc^ J <NQTryA J^SsO^. .JLOJO-A' -is

5=QoJ C»J;0<^«^J£3i_L__^_^

V \\CN<1A^VSS, Lg^ruraji^K J. Mtw ArVsQ. \r\AjaJL ,_gjr>.ss\ •

I^^J&JjDO. v\ yVrviOL<WL • >iiL

^_^00-XOOV-S>>0.jC3*><^iLMb<^ >CjE^ji.

^XVm^vvV'L A^Qji ~>

•SAOiN>cv_v5^gJ»Jo)l_

.•,.-Aftf..P.O-lfegr.Cd

— • — ---•-•-•• •-• >- TM • "•• ...--~-^-. ,„.„-.-,.-,- ---••—•-•- —-—___«_____ _ ____ , _ _,

:

_ «_ -***-=-;-

^

_= .

1

; , ___«,
Exhibit 32.2





Certification of the Chief 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Capital Southwest Corporation (the "Company") for the year ended March 31, 2022 (the “Report”), I, Michael S. Sarner, Chief Financial Officer of Capital Southwest Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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.





Date:  May 24, 2022By:/s/ Michael S. SarnerMichael S. SarnerChief Financial Officer
November 2021 / www.ams.usda.gov

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Pandemic Market Volatility Assistance Program for Dairy

Overview

The Pandemic Market Volatility Assistance Program provides:

 Roughly $360 million in payments to dairy farmers impacted by market volatility and disruptions as a 

result of the COVID-19 pandemic and ensuing Federal policies. 

 USDA payments to dairy farmers through their handlers and cooperatives, based on fluid milk sales from 

July through December 2020. 

 Education to dairy farmers on Federal dairy policies, provided through independent handlers and 

cooperatives. 

USDA payments will:

 Provide assistance payments to dairy farmers who received a lower value for their milk due to market 

abnormalities caused by the pandemic and ensuing Federal policies.

 Be distributed to dairy farmers on the same basis handler made July – December 2020 payments to dairy 

farmers.

 Be made through agreements between USDA and independent handlers and cooperatives whose dairy 

farmer suppliers are eligible to receive payments. 

 Be made to dairy farmers with an eligible 2020 Adjusted Gross Income: less than or equal to $900,000, or 

75 percent of income was derived from farming, ranching, or forestry-related activities.
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

November 2021 / www.ams.usda.gov

Program timeline:

 In October, USDA met with handlers and cooperatives whose dairy farmers suppliers are eligible to receive 

payments through this program. USDA is currently calculating the total payment amounts due to eligible 

dairy farmers associated with each handler or cooperative, which will be incorporated in the agreements.

 In November, handlers and cooperatives will sign an agreement with USDA to receive and distribute 

money to dairy farmers. Pursuant to their agreement, handlers and cooperatives will also agree to provide 

education to dairy farmers on dairy related topics.

 Once the agreement is signed, USDA will distribute the PMVAP payment. Handlers and cooperatives will 

have 30-days to disburse monies to their dairy farmers.

 In Spring 2022, PMVAP payments will be audited and verified. Handlers will then be reimbursed for some

administrative costs. 

Education

 Handlers will provide educational materials to their producers by March 1, 2022.

 Handlers may provide education in the form of mailings, recorded online trainings, live virtual webinars, 

and/or in-person meetings.

 USDA will make optional education materials available to handlers, or handlers may provide their own 

educational materials or training.

 Topics may include: Federal Milk Marketing Orders; Dairy Margin Coverage, Dairy Revenue Protection, 

Dairy Mandatory Price Reporting, Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Forward Contracting, and a variety of 

other relevant dairy topics.
# EUR-Lex - 12012M025 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12012M025

**Consolidated version of the Treaty on European Union - TITLE V: GENERAL PROVISIONS ON THE UNION'S EXTERNAL ACTION AND SPECIFIC PROVISIONS ON THE COMMON FOREIGN AND SECURITY POLICY - Chapter 2: Specific provisions on the common foreign and security policy - Section 1: Common provisions - Article 25 (ex Article 12 TEU) **

*
Official Journal C 326, 26/10/2012, p. 0031 - 0031 *

Article 25

(ex Article 12 TEU)

The Union shall conduct the common foreign and security policy by:

(a) defining the general guidelines;

(b) adopting decisions defining:

(i) actions to be undertaken by the Union;

(ii) positions to be taken by the Union;

(iii) arrangements for the implementation of the decisions referred to in points (i) and (ii);

and by

(c) strengthening systematic cooperation between Member States in the conduct of policy.

--------------------------------------------------
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

WESTERN DISTRICT 

M.L.C., 

 Petitioner 

 v. 

B.B., 

 Respondent 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 18 WM 2015 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 8th day of April, 2015, the Application for Leave to File Original 

Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED.
<PAGE>



                                                                    Exhibit 99.1



                Certification Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
                             As Adopted Pursuant To
                  Section 906 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002

I, Paul A. Ormond, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Manor
Care, Inc. (the Company) certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350, as adopted
pursuant toss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my
knowledge:

         (1)  The Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period
              ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
              Commission on the date hereof (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 as of, and for, the periods presented in
              the Report.

/s/ Paul A. Ormond

Paul A. Ormond
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
April 28, 2003