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

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of SouthFirst Bancshares, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB, for the quarter-ended December 31, 2002, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned, Joe K. McArthur, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, and Janice R. Browning, Controller (principal financial officer) of
the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of
our 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: February 14, 2003                   By:  /s/ Joe K. McArthur
                                             ----------------------------------
                                             Joe K. McArthur
                                             Chief Executive Officer


Date: February 14, 2003                   By:  /s/ Janice R. Browning
                                             ----------------------------------
                                             Janice R. Browning
                                             Controller
May 29, 2015 

Mr. Thomas R. Padgett, III 

643 Kinsale Road 

Kinsale, VA 22488 

Dear Mr. Padgett, III: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It 

explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your April 28, 2015, exemption request on behalf into the public docket 

(No. FAA-2015-1251), but we are unable to process your request any further. The 

information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For 

us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following: 

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division 

Enclosure
Exhibit 32.1   Flexpoint Sensor Systems, Inc.  CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 18 U.S.C. Section 1350  The undersigned executive officers of Flexpoint Sensor Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:  a. the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  b. the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.     Date:   November 8, 2006 /s/ Clark M. Mower Clark M. Mower Chief Executive Officer    Date:   November 8, 2006 /s/ John A. Sindt John A. Sindt Principal Financial Officer
i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-08-00435-CR

Joe Lewis CANTU,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2007-CR-6552

Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Delivered and Filed: January 14, 2009

AFFIRMED

Joe Cantu pleaded nolo contendere to the offense of indecency with a child by exposure, and

was placed on five years deferred adjudication community supervision for the offense. The State

subsequently filed a motion to revoke Cantu’s community supervision and enter an adjudication of

guilt, alleging Cantu had violated the terms of his community supervision by failing to submit to a

clinical polygraph scheduled by his treatment provider. After a hearing on the State’s motion, the

trial court adjudicated Cantu guilty and sentenced him to three years imprisonment. We affirm.
04-08-00435-CR

-2-

Cantu’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief containing a professional evaluation of the

record in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel concludes that the

appeal is frivolous and without merit. Counsel provided Cantu with a copy of the brief and informed

him of his right to review the record and file his own brief. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85-

86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex.

App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Cantu did not file a pro se brief.

After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and

without merit. The judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed. Furthermore, we grant appellate

counsel’s motion to withdraw. Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 86; Bruns 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1. No

substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Cantu wish to seek further review of this case by the

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary

review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must

be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing

that was overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review

must be filed with this court, after which it will be forwarded to the Texas Court of Criminal

Appeals. See TEX.R. APP. P. 68.3; 68.7. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with

the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX.R. APP. P. 68.4.

Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 714 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 714

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to maintain exemption of 
  Alaska from dyeing requirements for exempt diesel fuel and kerosene.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 25, 1999

 Mr. Murkowski (for himself and Mr. Stevens) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to maintain exemption of 
  Alaska from dyeing requirements for exempt diesel fuel and kerosene.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
    (a) Exception to Dyeing Requirements for Exempt Diesel Fuel and 
Kerosene.--Paragraph (1) of section 4082(c) of the Internal Revenue 
Code of 1986 (relating to exception to dyeing requirements) is amended 
to read as follows:
            ``(1) removed, entered, or sold in the State of Alaska for 
        ultimate sale or use in such State, and''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section applies 
with respect to fuel removed, entered, or sold on or after the date of 
the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
----- F o r wa r ded b y B r i an S h r a g e r / R T P / U S E PA

/ U S on 02 / 18 / 2011 03 : 15 PM

-----

F r o m: J i m E dd i nge r / R T P / U SEP A

/ US

T o: c o r t ne y _higg i n s @ o m b

. e op

. gov C c: Br ian S h r age r / R T P / U SE P A

/ U S @ E P A

, Ro b e r tJ

W a y l and / R T P / U SE P A

/ U S @ E PA
Da t e: 01 / 31 / 2011 12 : 30 PM
S ubje c t: T u ne

- up Re f e r en c es

Co r t ne y,

He r e a r e t

w o r e f e r en c e s t h a t

t he 1% e ne r g y s a v i n g s e s t i m a t e i s ba s ed on. O ne i ndi c a t e s 1 t o 5%

, t he o t h e r s how s % ba s ed on y e a r s s in c e la st

t une

- up.

(S ee a t t a c hed f ile : B o i le r E f f i c i en cy Pr og r a m U S I. pd f )( S e e a tt a c hed
f ile : T uneu p

- S e r

v i c i ng Y ou r B oile r

. pd f)

J im

___ _ _______ _ ___ J a m e s A

. E dd i nger E ne r g y S t r a t egie s G r oup S e c t o r P oli c ie s and Pr og r a ms Di v i s i on 919

- 5 4 1

- 5426
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 22

- 50044 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,**
Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus **Jose Rodolfo Escajeda,** Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:06

- CR

- 2507

- 2

Before **King, Jones,** and **Smith,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** * Jose Rodolfo Escajeda, federal prisoner # 69445

- 280, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). In response, the Government moves for the

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 4, 2022 Lyle W. Cayc e Clerk Case: 22-50044 Document: 00516418950 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/04/2022No. 22

- 50044

2 dismissal of the appeal as untimely or, alternatively, for an extensi on of time to file its brief. A notice of appeal in a criminal case must be filed within 14 days of the entry of the judgment or order being appealed

. **Fed. R. App. P.**  4(b)(1)(A)(i) ; United States v. Alvarez , 210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th Cir. 2000) (stating that a motion for reduction of sentence under § 3582(c)(2) is a step in a criminal case ). T he district court may extend the time “for a period not to exceed 30 days from the expiration of the time otherwise prescribed” if the district court find s excusable neglect or good cause , **Fed. R. App. P** 

. 4(b)(4) , and we will treat a late notice of appeal filed within the additional
30

- day period as a motion for a determination whether the notice of appeal should be considered timely due to excusable neglec t or good cause , United States v. Golding , 739 F.2d 183, 184 (5th Cir. 1984).
The order Escajeda seeks to appeal was entered on December 16, 2020. Escajeda filed his notice of appeal in January 2022, and soon thereafter filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), which was granted by a magistrate judge on February 4, 2022. While not jurisdictional, the time limits for filing a notice of appeal in a criminal case are “mandatory claims

- processing rules.” United States v. Pesina

- Rodriguez , 8 25 F.3d 787, 788 (5th Cir. 2016). Where, as in this case, the untimeliness of a notice of appeal is properly invoked, the appeal is foreclosed. See id

. Accordingly, the Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal as untimely is **GRANTED** , the Government’s al ternative motion for an extension of the briefing period is **DENIED** , and this appeal is **DISMISSED**

. Case: 22-50044 Document: 00516418950 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/04/2022
EX-13.2 5 eh1300930_ex1302.htm EXHIBIT 13.2

**EXHIBIT 13.2**

 

**Certification of Chief Financial Officer**

**Pursuant to**

**18 U.S.C. Section 1350,**

**As Enacted Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002**

 

 

Agave Silver Corp. (the “Company”) is filingwith the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, its annual report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended March31, 2016 (the “Report”).

 

I, Sherri Odribege, Interim Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as enacted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that to the best of my knowledge:

 

(i)  the Report fully complies with the requirementsof section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(ii)  the information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

 

 

 

July 8, 2016
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.36

                              AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
                             EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


         This Amendment No. 1, dated as of February 27, 2001, amends the
Employment Agreement, dated as of September 26, 2000 by and between R.H.
Donnelley Corporation (the "Company") and William C. Drexler (the "Executive")
(the "Existing Agreement", and as amended hereby, the "Agreement").

         WHEREAS, the Company considers it essential and in the best interests
of its shareholders to foster the continued employment of its senior management
personnel, and the Executive is an important member of the Company's senior
management; and

         WHEREAS, the initial term of the Existing Agreement expires on June 30,
2001, although the Existing Agreement automatically renews for successive
one-year terms, unless either party gives 90 day's written notice prior to the
renewal date;

         WHEREAS, the Company wishes to clarify the ramifications of a decision
by the Company not to renew Executive's employment as of June 30, 2001 or during
any subsequent renewal term; and

         WHEREAS, the Compensation and Benefits Committee of the Board of
Directors has approved the following amendment to the Existing Agreement;

         NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree that the Existing Agreement is hereby
amended as follows:

         1. Paragraph 1 of the Existing Agreement is amended by inserting the
following sentence at the end thereof:

                  "Any such non-renewal of this Agreement by the Company shall
                  be treated as a termination of Executive's employment without
                  Cause, as hereinafter defined."

         2. Except as amended hereby, the Existing Agreement shall remain in
full force and effect in accordance with its terms.

         3. This Amendment No. 1 shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of New York.

         4. This Amendment No. 1 may be signed in counterparts, each of which
shall be an original, with the same effect as if the signatures thereto and
hereto were upon the same instrument.

<PAGE>   2

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed this Amendment No. 1
as of the day and year first above written.


                                            Executive


                                            /s/ William C. Drexler
                                            ----------------------
                                            Signature of William C. Drexler


                                            R.H. DONNELLEY CORPORATION


                                            By:/s/ Frank R. Noonan
                                            ----------------------
                                               Name:Frank R. Noonan
                                              Title: Chairman & CEO




                                       2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANTS FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE PERIOD ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-2000
<CASH>                                             685
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,971
<ALLOWANCES>                                       448
<INVENTORY>                                      1,185
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,124
<PP&E>                                          11,644
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,617
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  23,450
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,916
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,126
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,225
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    23,450
<SALES>                                         14,709
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                28,198
<CGS>                                            3,147
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   15,767
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,979
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    54
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  54
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    410
<INCOME-TAX>                                       164
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                246
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       246
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.06


</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RICHARD P. DAGRES,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

COUNTRYWIDE BANK, N.A., succeeded

by merger with BAC Home Loan Servicing, 

LP; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 14-56799

D.C. No. 2:14-cv-01339-CAS-CW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 18, 2017**

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

Richard P. Dagres appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment 

dismissing his federal and state law claims arising from foreclosure proceedings. 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s 

 

* 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 26 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 14-56799 

dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(b)(6), and we may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Thompson v. 

Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Dagres’ securitization related state law 

claims because California law does not permit Dagres to bring a preemptive suit to 

challenge defendants’ authority to foreclosure. See Gomes v. Countrywide Home 

Loans, Inc., 192 Cal. Rptr. 3d 819, 823-24 (Ct. App. 2011). Each of Dagres’ 

arguments for why defendants lack authority to foreclose have been rejected by the 

California courts. See, e.g., Saterbak v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 199 Cal. 

Rptr. 3d 790, 795-96 (Ct. App. 2016) (borrowers lack standing to challenge 

assignments of loans into a securitized trust); Siliga v. Mortg. Elect. Registration 

Syst., Inc., 161 Cal. Rptr. 3d 500, 506 (Ct. App. 2013) (“California courts have 

held that a trustor who agreed under the terms of the deed of trust that [electronic 

database provider Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.], as the lender’s 

nominee, has the authority to exercise all of the rights and interests of the 

lender . . . is precluded from maintaining a cause of action based on the allegation 

that MERS has no authority to exercise those rights.”), abrogated in part by 

Yvanova v. New Century Mortg. Corp., 365 P.3d 845 (Cal. 2016).

We do not consider arguments not specifically and distinctly raised and 
3 14-56799 

argued in the opening brief, or raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. 

Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 158 (Tuesday, September 30, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Page S10188]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                 ORDERS FOR WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 1, 2008

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the 
Senate completes its business today, it stand in recess until 10 a.m. 
tomorrow, Wednesday, October 1; that following the prayer and the 
pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for 
the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, the Senate 
proceed to H.R. 7081, the India-United States Nuclear Cooperation 
Approval and Nonproliferation Enhancement Act, as provided for under a 
previous order; further, that the Senate stand in recess from 12:30 to 
2:15 p.m. for the weekly conference lunches.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.

                          ____________________
```
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 672

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to extend the higher Federal

medical assistance percentage for payment for Indian Health service

facilities to urban Indian health programs under the Medicaid Program.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 19, 1999

Mr. INOUYE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to extend

the higher Federal medical assistance percentage for payment for Indian Health service facilities to urban Indian

health programs under the Medicaid Program.

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENDING HIGHER MEDICAID FMAP FOR PAY4 MENT FOR URBAN INDIAN HEALTH PRO5 GRAMS.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—The third sentence of section

7 1905(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(b))

8 is amended—
2

•S 672 IS

1 (1) by inserting ‘‘or program’’ after ‘‘Indian

2 Health Service facility’’;

3 (2) by striking ‘‘or’’ and inserting a comma;

4 and

5 (3) by inserting ‘‘, or by an urban Indian health

6 program’’ before the period.

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

8 subsection (a) apply to medical assistance for items and

9 services furnished on or after October 1, 1999.

Æ