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





OVERSEAS SHIPHOLDING GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Each of the undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of Overseas Shipholding Group, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies, to the best of his knowledge and belief, that the Form 10-K/A of the Company for the annual period ended December 31, 2017 (the “Periodic Report”) accompanying this certification fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. This certification is provided solely for purposes of complying with the provisions of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and is not intended to be used for any other purpose.





Date: March 30, 2018/s/ SAMUEL H. NORTONSamuel H. NortonChief Executive OfficerDate: March 30, 2018/s/ RICHARD TRUEBLOODRichard TruebloodChief Financial Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CIPRIAN MATEI VLAD and EVELYN 

KLARA GRIM, AKA Evelyn Grim-Smout, 

Petitioners, 

 v. 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 16-70331 

Agency Nos. A089-331-239 

A089-421-072 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 26, 2017**

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Ciprian Matei Vlad and Evelyn Klara Grim, natives and citizens of 

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

dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. Our 

jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence 

 

* 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

OCT 2 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-70331 

factual findings, and review de novo questions of law. Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 

1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for 

review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that petitioners are 

removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) due to each having procured a visa 

through a fraudulent marriage, where the government presented clear and 

convincing evidence that they did not intend to establish a life with their respective 

United States citizen spouses at the inception of their marriages. See Nakamoto v. 

Ashcroft, 363 F.3d 874, 881-82 (9th Cir. 2004) (in determining whether an alien 

entered into a marriage for the purpose of procuring admission into the United 

States, the focus of the inquiry is whether the couple intended to establish a life 

together at the time they were married; this court must affirm the IJ’s ruling unless 

the evidence is “so compelling that no reasonable fact finder could fail to find the 

facts were as [the alien] alleged”).

To the extent petitioners contend the agency erred in considering evidence 

after the time of their respective marriages, this contention fails because such 

evidence may “bear on the subjective intent of the parties at the time they were 

married.” Oropeza-Wong v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1135, 1148 (9th Cir. 2005) 

(citation omitted).

Petitioners’ contention that the BIA improperly shifted the burden of proof 
3 16-70331 

onto them is not supported by the record.

We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ unexhausted contentions that 

they were not given a proper individualized inquiry, and that the IJ improperly 

shifted the burden of proof onto them. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part, DISMISSED in part.
Order entered December 23, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01108-CR

ROBERT LEE MENYWEATHER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F12-55747-Y

ORDER

We GRANT Official Court Reporter Sharon Hazlewood’s December 19, 2013 request 

for an extension of time to file the reporter’s record. The reporter’s record shall be due 

THIRTY DAYS from the date of this order.

The clerk’s record has not been filed and is now overdue.

We ORDER the Dallas County District Clerk to file the clerk’s record within THIRTY 

DAYS of the date of this order.

We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to transmit a copy of this order, by electronic 

transmission, to the following:

Official Court Reporter Sharon Hazlewood

Dallas County District Clerk Gary Fitzsimmons

The Dallas County District Clerk, Criminal Records Division
Counsel for all parties

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice: 12546]

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects being imported from abroad pursuant to agreements with their foreign owners or custodians for temporary display in the exhibition “Madinat al-Zhara: The Radiant Capital of Islamic Spain” at the Institute for the Study of the Ancient World, New York University, New York, New York, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, are of cultural significance, and, further, that their temporary exhibition or display within the United States as aforementioned is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Reed Liriano, Program Coordinator, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:                         *section2459@state.gov*). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, L/PD, 2200 C Street NW (SA-5), Suite 5H03, Washington, DC 20522-0505.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                     *et seq.;*22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                     *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000, and Delegation of Authority No. 523 of December 22, 2021.                

Nicole L. Elkon,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Professional and Cultural Exchanges, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 2024-21523 Filed 9-19-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
# C_2022339EN.01000101.xml

| 5.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 339/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 339/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10781 – KB AG / KB SFN / KBJ)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 339/01)

On 29 August 2022, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10781. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10781. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       2,279,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               15,455,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   452,000
<INVENTORY>                                 18,171,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            37,854,000
<PP&E>                                      94,581,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              32,497,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             109,376,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       19,166,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     8,950,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  62,047,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               109,376,000
<SALES>                                     86,420,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            86,420,000
<CGS>                                       66,416,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               81,602,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               455,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             948,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,663,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (949,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,612,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,612,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.33
        

</TABLE>
#### WACHXMANN v. STATE.

No. 16397.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 10, 1934.

See, also, 60 S.W.(2d) 216.

H. S. Beard, of Waco, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

The offense is possessing intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale; the punishment, confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of one year.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. No defect either in the indictmenit or procedure has been pointed out or has been perceived. No question is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.
EXHIBIT 11

                            SBI COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
                    COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
                           FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
                             MARCH 31, 1996 AND 1997

                                            Three Months     Three Months
                                               Ended            Ended
                                           March 31, 1996   March 31, 1997
                                           --------------   --------------
Shares outstanding:                           5,345,439        5,345,439
Weighted average shares outstanding           5,345,439        5,345,439
Net loss                                   $   (131,620)    $   (150,072)
Preferred Dividend                                --               --
                                           --------------   --------------
Total                                          (131,620)        (150,072)
Net loss per share                         $      (0.02)    $      (0.03)


                                     Page 14

<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 31.2**CERTIFICATION**I, Thomas C. Chesterman, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Aradigm Corporation;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and     c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation, of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):     a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.       /s/ Thomas C. Chesterman     Thomas C. Chesterman    *Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer*
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2706 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2706

     To amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
  Assistance Act to provide snow removal assistance to Indian tribes 
     under a Federal emergency declaration, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 18, 2018

  Mr. Tester introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
  Assistance Act to provide snow removal assistance to Indian tribes 
     under a Federal emergency declaration, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SNOW REMOVAL ASSISTANCE.

    Section 502(a) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5192(a)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (7), by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (2) in paragraph (8), by striking the period at the end and 
        inserting ``; and''; and
            (3) by inserting after paragraph (8) the following:
            ``(9) provide snow assistance, including snow removal, de-
        icing, salting, snow dumps, and sanding of roads and other 
        facilities, and search and rescue, sheltering, and other 
        emergency protective measures, to an Indian tribe that makes a 
        request for a declaration that an emergency exists because of a 
        snowstorm or severe winter storm.''.
                                 <all>
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         September 19, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 13, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 338 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2024-681, CP2024-690.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-21375 Filed 9-18-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
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 Quarterly Report of Park Bancorp, Inc., (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2006, (the Report), I,
Steven J. Pokrak, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Steven J. PokrakSteven J. PokrakTreasurer and Chief Financial OfficerNovember 14, 2006




23.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Roosevelt J. Jones, Appellant

No. 06-16-00037-CV v.

Plains Pipeline, L.P., a Texas Limited 

Partnership, Appellee

Appeal from the 402nd District Court of 

Wood County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 2015-

687). Opinion delivered by Chief Justice 

Morriss, Justice Moseley and Justice 

Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the appeal should be dismissed 

for want of jurisdiction. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

We further order that the appellant, Roosevelt J. Jones, pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED JANUARY 5, 2017

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk