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 UbiquiTel, Inc. and UbiquiTel Operating Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Paul N. Saleh, Chief Financial
Officer of each of UbiquiTel, Inc. and UbiquiTel Operating Company, 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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                  |  |  |  |                                                                                  
|----------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|September 8, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/ Paul N. Saleh                                                                
|                  |  |  |  | Paul N. Saleh Chief Financial Officer UbiquiTel, Inc. UbiquiTel Operating Company
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as chief
executive officer of SMTC Corporation (the Company), does hereby certify that to the undersigneds knowledge:



1) the Companys quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 4, 2004 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 Companys quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 4, 2004 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/    John CaldwellJohn Caldwell President and Chief Executive
Officer




Date: May 19, 2004



A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to SMTC Corporation and will be retained by SMTC Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Order entered December 1 8 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05

- 13

- 01224

- CV

UNION PACIFIC RAILRO AD COMPANY, Appellant

V.

CATHERINE STOUFFER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF GARY LEE STOUFFER, J R. AND AS NEXT FRIEND OF SHANN ON STOUFFER AND SHANE STOUFFER, ET A L., Appellee s

On Appeal from the 116th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 12

- 15204



### O RDER

Appellees’ Motion to Dismiss the appeal is DENIED.

/s/ KERRY P. FITZGERAL D

JUSTICE
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

October 28, 2016

No. 04

- 16

- 00231

- CV

Charles Edward REED Jr.; Amos E. Reed III, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Delores Perrin; Curtis Cullen Smith, Trustee of the Laura Dossett Smith Family Trust; Et al.

, Appellants

v.

MALTSBERGER/STOREY RANCH, LLC ; Storey Minerals, Ltd.; Tom O. Hanks; Karen R. Hanks; TK Hanks Royalties, LP,

Appellees

From the 81st Judicial District Court, La Salle County, Texas

Trial Court No. 13

- 03

- 00057

- CVL Honorable Donna S. Rayes, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

T his court granted Appell ee s ’ first motion s for extension of time to file their brief s , and
the brief s are due on October 31 , 2016

. Before the due date

, Appell ee s filed un opposed second
motion s for extension of time to file their brief s until November 30 , 2016 , for a total extension of sixty

- two days.

Appell ee s ’ motion s are GRANTED. Appell ee s ’ brief s are due on November 30

, 2016

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(d). Any further motion for extension of time to file Appell ee s’ brief s will be disfavored.

_______________________ __________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 28th day of October, 20 16

.

_________________ __________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In the Interest of M.E.M. and W.T.M., Jr.

Appellate case number: 01-14-00218-CV

Trial court case number: 2013-01375J

Trial court: 314th District Court of Harris County

Appellant appealed from the trial court’s March 5, 2014 judgment. The clerk’s 

record was filed on March 24, 2014 and the reporter’s record was filed on March 31, 

2014; appellant’s brief was therefore due on April 21, 2014. See TEX. R. APP. P. 4.1(a), 

38.6(a). On May 16, 2014, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that the time for 

filing her brief had expired.

Appellant responded on May 27, 2014 by filing a “Motion for Extension of Time 

to File Brief.” In her motion, appellant states that her “counsel has not filed an appellate 

brief because the trial court granted a Motion for New Trial on April 28, 2014” and that 

“counsel intends to file a Motion to Dismiss the appeal when she feels it is safe to do so.” 

Appellant requests an extension of the deadline for filing her brief to June 15, 2014.

The granting of a motion for new trial by the trial court does not constitute a 

reasonable explanation of the need for an extension of time to file an appellate brief. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 10.5(b)(1)(C); 38.6(d). Accordingly, we deny the motion for extension.

Further, based on the trial court’s April 28, 2014 “Order on Motion for New 

Trial,” which appellant attached to her motion for extension, it appears that this appeal is 

now moot. See TEX. R. APP. P. 21.9(b); Galvan v. Harris Cnty., No. 01-09-00884-CV, 

2011 WL 345677, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 31, 2011, no pet.) (mem. 

op.); see also TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.220(c) (West Supp. 2013); TEX. R. APP. P. 

10.2. Accordingly, we notify appellant that we may dismiss this appeal for want of 

jurisdiction unless appellant files a written response within 10 days of this order, 

providing a detailed explanation, citing relevant portions of the record, statutes, rules, and 

case law, showing that this appeal is not moot and that this Court has jurisdiction over 

this proceeding. See TEX. R. APP. P. 21.9(b), 42.3.
It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Chief Justice Sherry Radack

  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: June 3, 2014
#### Gerardo HERNANDEZ-CASTANEDA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 01-71372.

INS No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 22, 2002.*

Decided July 31, 2002.

Before BROWNING, KOZINSKI, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Gerardo Hernandez-Castaneda, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision upholding an immigration judge’s denial of his motion to terminate removal proceedings because he should *141have a right, pursuant to international human rights law, to live and work wherever he chooses. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and deny the petition for review.

The BIA properly upheld denial of Hernandez-Casteneda’s motion to terminate removal proceedings because “[i]n enacting statutes, Congress is not bound by international law; if it chooses to do so, it may legislate contrary to the limits posed by international law.” *See Alvarez-Mendez v. Stock,*941 F.2d 956, 963 (9th Cir.1991) (quotation and citation omitted).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Page 1 of 1 US EPA

Public Input on the Draft Document

“ Technologies for Legionella Control:

Scientific Literature Review ”

Meeting Location

U.S. EPA Potomac Yard South Building

1st Floor Conference Center located at One Potomac Yard

2777 S. Crystal Drive

Arlington, VA 22202

Meeting Date and Time

November 9 , 2015 (1 :00

- 5 :30 pm)



### FINAL AGENDA

Overview of Meeting Agenda and Ground Rules 1:00

– 1: 05

Frank Letkiewicz, Cadmus (Facilitator)

Welcome and Introductory Remarks 1:0 5

– 1: 1 5

Peter Grevatt

, EPA OGWDW

Overview of Legionella Draft Document 1: 1 5

– 1 : 4 5

César Cordero

, EPA OGWDW

Clarification Questions 1: 4 5

– 1: 5 5

FIFRA Overview 1: 5 5

– 2:0 5

Dominic Schuler

, EPA OPP

Clarification Questions 2:0 5

– 2:1 5

Public Input Session, Part 1 (Pre

- Registered Commenters) 2:1 5

– 3 : 00

Break 3 : 00

– 3: 1 5

Public Input Session , Part 2 (Other Commenters) 3: 1 5

– 5:2 5

Closing Remarks and Next Steps 5: 2 5

- 5 : 30

EPA OGWDW
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 24 (Monday, February 5, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 7731]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-02225]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--OpenJS Foundation

    Notice is hereby given that, on December 20, 2023, pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), OpenJS Foundation has filed 
written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the 
Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The 
notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's 
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Tafsol 
Technologies, Karachi, PAKISTAN, has been added as a party to this 
venture.
    Also, FlowForge has changed its name to FlowFuse, San Francisco, 
CA.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and OpenJS Foundation intends to file 
additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On August 17, 2015, OpenJS Foundation filed its original 
notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of 
Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section 
6(b) of the Act on September 28, 2015 (80 FR 58297).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on July 27, 
2023. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
section 6(b) of the Act on October 6, 2023 (88 FR 69670).

Suzanne Morris,
Deputy Director Civil Enforcement Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2024-02225 Filed 2-2-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
EXHIBIT 32.1

                                CERTIFICATION OF
                            AMERICAN RIVER BANKSHARES
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
   REGARDING QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2007

         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections
(a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each
of the undersigned officers of American River Bankshares, a California
corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify that:

         1.       The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
                  ended June 30, 2007 (the "Form 10-Q") fully complies with the
                  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
                  Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

         2.       Information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
                  material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.

Dated: August 7, 2007
                                       By: /s/ DAVID T. TABER
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           David T. Taber
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer

Dated: August 7, 2007
                                       By: /s/ MITCHELL A. DERENZO
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Mitchell A. Derenzo
                                           Executive Vice President and
                                           Chief Financial Officer

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to American River Bankshares and will be retained by American
River Bankshares and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.

                                       39
SERVED OCTOBER 2, 2014 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

IN THE MATTER OF TRANS NORTH AVIATION, LTD FAA DOCKETNO. (2012-GL-03-0012) (Civil Penalty Action) 

# RECEIVED OCT 0

# G 2014 HEARING DOCKET



# a'1ECEIVED OCT 06 2014 HEARING DOCKET

TRANS NORTH AVIATION, LTD'S NOTICE OFAPPEAL OF INITIAL DECISION OF ADMINSTRATIVELAWJUDGE
TRANS NORTH AVIATION, LTD., by and through its counsel, BARNETT & BORTH, LLC, pursuant to 14 C.F.R § 13.233(a) hereby files its NOTICE OF APPEAL OF INITIAL DECISION OF ADMINSTRATIVE LAW JUDGE, TRANS NORTH AVIATION, LTD served
on September 25, 2014 affirming Trans North Aviation's violation of 14 CPR§ 135.267(d) and assessing a civilpenalty inthe amount of$7,500.00. Dated: October 2, 2014 Respectfully submitted,



# ~ c:... /

.. ·'

**-~**

**~** - Attoffieyroresponaent Trans North Aviation, LTD Charles R. Barnett, III Barnett & Borth, LLC 800 Waukegan Road, Suite 200 Glenview, IL 60025 (847) 724-5520 (815) 356-7042 (FAX)CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that the foregoing Notice of Appeal was served via FedEx as follows: ORIGINAL AND ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 600 Independence Avenue, SW., Wilbur WrightBuilding-Suite2W1000 Washington, DC 20591 Attention: HearingDocket Clerk, AGC-430 FAX: 202-493-5142 ONE COPY Jeanette Daubaras, Complainant's Counsel Great Lakes Region, AGL-7M Federal AviationAdministration 2300 East Devon Avenue Des Plaines, IL 60018-4696 FAX: 847-294-7498

Datedthis 2nd day ofOctober, 2014.



# ~ Attorney for Respondent

2
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).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JILSCA OPPIER,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-72319

Agency No. A096-362-881

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 8, 2013** 

Pasadena, California

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

Petitioner Jilsca Oppier (Oppier), an Indonesian citizen, petitions for review

of a decision from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing her asylum

application as untimely, and denying Oppier’s requests for withholding of removal

and Convention Against Torture (CAT) protection. Oppier contends that changed

FILED

MAY 14 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

circumstances excused the untimely filing of her asylum application, and that the

BIA’s denial of withholding of removal and CAT relief is not supported by

substantial evidence.

The BIA’s dismissal of Oppier’s untimely asylum application is supported

by substantial evidence because Oppier failed to demonstrate changed

circumstances “materially affecting [her] eligibility for asylum.” Singh v. Holder,

656 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted); see also Ramadan v.

Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 658 (9th Cir. 2007) (“The record . . . does not compel the

conclusion that [Oppier] showed changed circumstances to excuse the late filing of

her asylum application. . . .”). 

The BIA’s denial of withholding of removal was also supported by

substantial evidence, as Oppier failed to demonstrate that her harassment in

Indonesia rose to the level of past persecution and “that she will more likely than

not be singled out individually for persecution on account of a protected ground. . .

.” Tampubolon v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1056, 1062 n.5 (9th Cir. 2010), as amended;

see also Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1060 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that

substantial evidence supported rejection of past persecution claim because

petitioner failed to demonstrate “a pattern of persecution closely tied to . . . [the

petitioner]”) (citation omitted). 
3

 Because Oppier failed to present any evidence that it was more likely than

not that she would be tortured in Indonesia, Oppier’s CAT claim fails. See

Alphonsus v. Holder, 705 F.3d 1031, 1049 (9th Cir. 2013) (“To establish eligibility

under CAT, an alien must demonstrate that [she] will more likely than not be

tortured if removed to [her] home country. . . .”) (citations and internal quotation

marks omitted). 

PETITION DENIED.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1999 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1999

           To define and protect the institution of marriage.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 29, 1996

   Mr. Nickles (for himself and Mr. Byrd, Mr. Helms, Mr. Coats, Mr. 
   Faircloth, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Lott, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Santorum, Mr. 
Shelby, Mr. Smith, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Warner, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Bennett, 
 Mr. Frist, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Burns, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Stevens, and 
  Mr. Gorton) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
           To define and protect the institution of marriage.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Defense of Marriage Act''.

SEC. 2. POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is 
amended by adding after section 1738B the following:
``Sec.  1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect 
              thereof
    ``No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or 
Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, 
record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, 
possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the 
same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other 
State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising 
from such relationship.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
after the time relating to section 1738B the following new item:

``1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect 
                            thereof.''.

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'
    ``In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any 
ruling, regulations, or interpretation of the various administrative 
bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means 
only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, 
and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who 
is a husband or a wife.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by inserting after 
the item relating to section 6 the following new item:

``7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'.''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           7,058                  10,806
<SECURITIES>                                     2,000                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,913                   7,305
<ALLOWANCES>                                        46                      46
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                18,673                  18,718
<PP&E>                                           2,166                   1,690
<DEPRECIATION>                                     551                   1,231
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  19,288                  19,177
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,665                   4,601
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                           114                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                      13,509                     111
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    19,288                  19,177
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                22,481                  25,692
<CGS>                                           10,105                  11,477
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,105                  11,477
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,294                  12,005
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 502                      98
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    584                   2,308
<INCOME-TAX>                                        23                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                561                   2,308
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                       561                   2,308
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $0.05                   $0.25<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $0.05                   $0.23
<FN>
<F1>THE EPS FOR 1996 HAS BEEN RESTATED TO COMPLY WITH THE FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING
STANDARDS BOARD STATEMENT NO. 128 "EARNINGS PER SHARE" AND STAFF ACCOUNTING
BULLETIN NO. 98.
</FN>


</TABLE>