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 Advanced Neuromodulation
Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30,
2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, F. Robert Merrill III, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify to the best of my knowledge and in my capacity as an officer
of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 operations of the
Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate,
effective as of November 13, 2003.

/s/F. Robert Merrill IIIName: F. Robert Merrill IIITitle: Chief Financial Officer
## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## N AVY



## – M ARINE 

## C ORPS 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS

_________________________
No

. 201 600095

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v.



### AJAI D. GARRETT
Seaman Recruit (E

- 1), U.S. Navy

Appellant

_________________________ Appeal from the United States Navy

- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Lieutenant Colonel Elizabeth A. Harvey, USMC

. For Appellant: Lieutenant Commander Derek C. Hampton, JAGC, U SN

. For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________
Decided 18 A ugust 2016

_________________________ Before PALMER, MARKS, and NORKIN

, Appellate Military Judges

_________________________ After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL
Clerk of Court
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

THELMA JUDITH REVOLORIOOVALLE,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 10-72765

Agency No. A072-439-395

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 19, 2012** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Thelma Judith Revolorio-Ovalle, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from

an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum and

FILED

DEC 28 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-72765

withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review

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

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

Revolorio-Ovalle fears harm from the people who killed her husband, but

she testified that she does not know who killed him, and she did not testify as to

why he was killed. We reject Revolorio-Ovalle’s contention that she established

past persecution in light of our prior decision. See Revolorio-Ovalle v. Gonzales,

No. 06-70990, 2007 WL 1649934 (9th Cir. June 6, 2007). Substantial evidence

supports the agency’s finding that Revolorio-Ovalle failed to establish a

well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground. See

Ochave v. INS, 254 F.3d 859, 865-66 (9th Cir. 2001) (asylum generally is not

available to victims of civil strife, unless they are singled out on account of a

protected ground). Accordingly, Revolorio-Ovalle’s asylum claim fails.

Because Revolorio-Ovalle failed to meet the lower burden of proof for

asylum, her claim for withholding of removal necessarily fails. See Zehatye v.

Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Exhibit 11



                  WHITMAN MEDICAL CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES

             COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE OF COMMON STOCK


                                        FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                     September 30,     September 30,
                                          1995              1994
                                     --------------    -------------


Primary:
Average shares outstanding              3,854,851          3,351,036

Net effect of dilutive
 stock options and warrants
 based on the treasury stock
 method using the average
 market price                              339,729           142,766

Total                                    4,194,580         3,493,802
                                        ==========        ==========
Net loss                               $(1,403,129)         $(78,534)
Per share amount                             $(.33)            $(.02)

Fully diluted:
Average shares outstanding              3,854,851          3,351,036

Net effect of dilutive
 stock options and warrants
 based on the treasury stock
 method using quarter-end
 market price                              339,729            67,967

Total                                    4,194,580         3,419,003
                                        ==========        ==========
Net loss                               $(1,403,129)         $(78,534)
Per share amount                             $(.33)            $(.02)


   Net loss per share of common stock is computed by dividing net loss by
the weighted average number of shares outstanding during the period
adjusted for common stock equivalents when such adjustments result in
dilution of earnings per share.  The 510,806 shares issued in connection
with the acquisition of Sanford Brown College that remain in escrow to be
disbursed to the seller or returned to the Company upon the occurrence of
failure to occur of certain events are not considered outstanding for
purposes of computing net loss for the three months ended June 30, 1995 as
their effect is anti-dilutive.
REF ID:A66525 

-&ed.hta·1 tt,.~~Ll"AiCI 

pONFIDENTIAL 

.Certi.tica tton. of Public Law 513 

Sf ASST l.6 March 1953 

In accordance with BSA Memorandum. No. 120-18, dated 3 Februar,y 195.3, 

certltication that public law Sl3 has been reviewed. by all personnel assigned 

to the Office or the Special Assistant ie herewith submLtted. 

.. 

WILLIAM F. FlilEllWt 

Special Assistant 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 05-08-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a 

• 
Chiet! Security Control 

Divia on 

.REF ID:A66525------------

f ~lkd~.;.. I 

Certitiaation of Public tw Sl.3 

Consultant 17 March l9S2 

In accordance with .AFSA Memorandum No. 120-18/1, certiticat:lon that public law SlJ has been reviewed b7 all personnel. assigned to the Office ot the 

Consultant is herewith submitted., 

WILLIAM F. FRIEDMAN 

Consultant 
REF ID:A66525 

Sc"'d'fillY llcHJt<h1All .... 

Certitication ot Public Law Sl3 

Sl!Xl S/ASST lS June l.9S3 

In accordance w1 th EA Memol'andum Ho. 120-181 dated .3 Februar-.f l9S.l, 

cel"ti.tication that public law $'13 baa bean reviewed by all personnel assigned 

to the O!i'ice ot the Sp3Cial Assistant is hgrewl th 81lbm1 tted. 

CONFlt:>EN 1 IAL ._ 

. ., ~ .. ::. ..... ~.-. 

W'ILLIAK F. FRIEmWJ 

Speoial Assistant 
_.. ........ ---------------~ 

Chief,. security 

Control Division 

REF ID: A66525 __ _ 

Certit.1.cation of Pli>lic Law Sl.3 

Consul. tant. 26 June 19 .S 2 

ln acco:niame w1 t.h AFSA MBD.oralldum. No. 120-18/11 certification that publio 

law 5lJ has been reviewed by all personnel. assigned to the Office of the 

Consultmt. is herewith submitted. 

WILLI.AMF. FRIEDMAN 

Consult ant 

z+il¥ » A4. l g .... 
Chief- Seour1t7 

Control Division 

..... .... ~ ..... ~I 

REF ID:A66525 

1t; ... -6DWABENTIAl .l -lhufV HiFBRirbiTl6N 

Certtf'1ca t.1.on ot Publ.ic Law Sl3 

Consultant. 12 Sept 19S2 

In accordance with AFSA Manorandum No. 120-18/1,, certitioatian that public 

law Sl3 has been rft'iewed b;r al1 personnel. assigned to 'the Office of the 

Consultant is hartnd.th submitted., 

tii!" CO?iFIBENTlA-r- ..... 

WltLIAM F. FRIEDMAN 

Consultant 
REF ID:A66525 

-OONFIBEH'flAt: 

Cert1tica ti.on ot Public Lav 513 

s:r.c OONS lS Dec 19S2 

In accordance w1 th AFSA MElllOrandum. Bo. 120-18/1, cert.i.tica ti.on that public 

law Sl3 has been re'Y.leved bJr' all personnel assigned to the Office ot the 

Consultant ia herewith •ul:mdtted. 

.aoNFll:lENTIAt 

WILLIAM F. Fm EDMAI 

Consultant
#### Lynes and another vs. Eldred.

Change oe Venue, *for convenience of loitnesses, etc.*

The determination of a motion for a change in the place of trial, to promote “the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice,” rests largely in the *discretion*of the circuit court; and in this case no sufficient reason appears for reversing an order denying such a motion.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for *Milwaukee*County.

The cause was submitted for the appellants on briefs of *W. JI. Webster.*For the respondent, the2’e were briefs by *Jenkins, Elliott dk Winkler,*and oral argument by *Mr. Winkler.*

Cole, J.

This is an appeal from an order denying an application to change the place of trial of this action from Milwaukee to Oconto county, on the ground that the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change. A motion for a change on this ground was first made in March, 1878, when the motion was denied, but without prejudice to the plaintiffs’ right to renew it. In October following the motion was renewed, when it was denied, “ on the *427ground of laches in the plaintiffs in not moving sooner, upon defendant filing with the clerk of this court the stipulation offered relative to the defendant paying the fees of plaintiffs’ witnesses mentioned in the affidavit of plaintiffs used on said motion.”

The affidavits upon which the respective motions were founded, state essentially the same grounds for the change. In opposition to the last motion the defendant filed his affidavit, wherein he states that several witnesses, whose names are mentioned, were necessary and material witnesses, without whose testimony he could not safely proceed to trial; “that all of said witnesses are ready and willing to attend the trial of the cause in Milwaukee county; and that the defendant intends to procure their attendance; ” further, that he could not obtain a fair and impartial trial of the cause in Oconto county, for reasons which he gives.

We have thus alluded to the various proceedings in this case for the purpose of showing that we would not be justified by anything appearing in the record, in reversing the order, even if we thought that the court below denied the change for a wrong reason. We are by no means clear that the second motion was not properly denied on account of the plaintiffs’ delay in making it. But we shall not go into that question. It is sufficient to say that the granting or denying of the motion was a matter resting largely in the discretion of the court below, and we cannot say that that discretion was abused under the circumstances. We attach no importance to the stipulation relative to paying the expenses of securing the attendance of plaintiffs’ witnesses, upon which the court below seems to have laid some stress.

The learned counsel for the defendant insisted that the order was not appealable. Without, however, discussing the point at this time, we remark that appeals from such orders have heretofore been entertained without question.

*By the Court.*— The order of the circuit court is affirmed.
November 22, 2016

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

FLEMING & ASSOCIATES, L.L.P. (N/K/A FLEMING, NOLEN & JEZ, L.L.P.) 

AND GEORGE FLEMING, Appellants

NO. 14-16-00752-CV V.

CHARLES KIRKLIN, STEPHEN KIRKLIN, PAUL KIRKLIN AND THE 

KIRKLIN LAW FIRM, P.C., Appellees

________________________________

Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the 

judgment signed by the court below on January 25, 2016. Having considered the 

motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

appellants, Fleming & Associates, L.L.P. (n/k/a Fleming, Nolen & Jez, L.L.P.) and 

George Fleming.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
REF ID:A69617 

SUBJECT: German Magazine 

ID t Director 

National Security Agency 

Washiogton 25, D. c. 

ATTN: Mr. Friedman 

1. Transmitted herewith for your information and retention is 

the 1.0 March 1954 copy of the German magazine "Der Spiegel". This 

magazine is being forwarded by request of Mr. Friedman. 

2. If' a.n:y other copies of this magazine are desired, request 

this Headquarters be notified. 

FOR THE CHIEFi 

/s/ Roscoe R. Conklin 

/t/ ROSCOE R. CONKLIN 

1 Incl 

a/s 

1at Ind 

Jlational Security Agency, Washington 25, D. c. 

'1'Q: Chief, A::nq Securit;y ~ency, Europe 

Captain CE 

Adjutant 

lleriaJ.: 34-53 

i 9MAV 1~ri 

l· Receipt o'l the above mentioned copy is acknowledged and ia 

much appreciated.. 

2. It appears that the 10 March 1954 iaeue 1• a continuation o'l: 

an article which appeared perhaps in the February 1951'- i•aue, since the 

March installment ia narked "Arabic F:S.&ure II, Continued11 J also tbat same 

inatallment B&Y• at the end "To be Continued". It woul.d. be desirable to 

have the whole aeries it poaaible. 

r.. M. MILLER, Jr. 

MsJor AGC 

Asst. AdJ. ~en. 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 11-08 2013 pursuant to E .0. 13520 
..... , •Ii: 111: - .... 

cc: AG 

C/S._',-:,., 

Sf A -• Friedman) 

REF ID:A69617 

3453 

I Q'i- ~-' f 1.0'~ .. - .. · .. J" ' J-..... .r•_ 

M/R: Sel:f Expl.a.Datory. Above mentioned magazine is being sent to 

Tech Library ror retention. 

Kay Noxtine, Ad.min Assist./S/A, 60493/l.7MaY55 

----·- --- --------------
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-10701 Summary Calendar

ROBERT LEE HENDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT; ET AL., Defendants, DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT; RICHARD HUDSON, Ricky; JOHN T. MEANS; PAUL A. DEMAAGD, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:99-CV-1769-P

-------------------- March 26, 2001 Before DAVIS, JONES and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Robert Lee Henderson appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Henderson’s motion for leave to supplement the record on appeal is DENIED. Henderson’s contentions that the district court denied his motion to add the City of Dallas as a party defendant, determined that service of process on the City of Dallas was insufficient,No. 00-10701 -2- and denied discovery are frivolous. Henderson has abandoned any challenge to the dismissal of his complaint against the unserved defendants by failing to brief the issue sufficiently. See Cinel v. Connick , 15 F.3d 1338, 1345 (5th Cir. 1994). Henderson challenges the district court’s determination that Officer Demaagd and Officer Means were entitled to qualified immunity on his false arrest claims. The district court did not err in determining that Demaagd and Means acted with objective reasonableness on information provided by another officer. See Bennett v. City of Grand Prairie , 883 F.2d 400, 410 (5th Cir. 1989). Henderson did not establish that Means was liable for his supervisory role. See Thompkins v. Belt , 828 F.2d 298, 303-04 (5th Cir. 1987). Henderson does not identify a policy or custom related to the alleged violation of his constitutional rights, and he does not establish an actionable violation attributable to the individual defendants. Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed his claims against the City of Dallas. See Olabisiomotosho v. City of Houston , 185 F.3d 521, 528-29 (5th Cir. 1999). The district court did not err in denying Henderson’s motion for summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Henderson has failed to brief sufficiently his claims concerning the following issues: false imprisonment and malicious prosecution, the Texas concealed handgun law; the failure to provide Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 (1966), warnings; the acceptance of hearsay; the expungement of his record; the denial of his motions; and theNo. 00-10701 -3- weight afforded to Pamela Scott’s affidavit. Accordingly, he has abandoned these issues. See Cinel , 15 F.3d at 1345. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.
REF ID:A39331 

• • 

· &dfo.-d Says Chiefs of Staff Have Vetoed 

Any 'Radical' (;hange in ~ilitary Strategy 

NEW YORK, Dec. 2 111'1.- "radical change" in the Nation's mer is continuing fssentially 

Admiral Arthur W. Radford, current military strategy. the same military program with 

. chairman of the Joint ChiC!fs of He said the new Joint Chiefs the exception of bolstered con· 

Staff, tonight ruled ou-t ;my of Staff who took over .last sum· tinental defense to "meet any 

-~~--...,..,.,..,..,===:i!:l=:=======-;;;;;;;;iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii:=:il and all threats." Even this buildup, he· cautioned, must be on an 

"orderly, non-hysterical basis." 

The new Chiefs were put in 

office following powerful Republican demands for a review 

of the United States military 

program by officers not too 

closely allied with Truman Administration policies. 

iD But Radford told the American Ordinance Association that, 

• 

• 

with the ·exception of "certain 

increases recommended for continental defense," new recommendations "do not represent 

any material change from those 

developed in previously ap- proved plans." 

Radford referred to recommendations made in October for 

the Army, Navy and Air Force. 

Speaking at a West Point student conference a few hours 

earlier, Radford said "the threat 

of war has not diminished." 

"The existence of nuclear 

weapons in the hands of the 

Soviet requires every nation to 

step up its plans for defense," 

Inky, 

ping 

from 

he added. · namt 

The Admiral said here tonight ratht 

that this country and its allies 

can not now or in the foresee- recoJ - able future place sole reliance --- on air forces. 

"Our security and that of the. Na~ free world can not at this time 

be entrusted to an unbalanced · · ~ . • • concept of forces," he said. - For either small or large wars, The 

he said, there must be "well sonne.1 

rounded" land, naval and air vious ; 

forces, although there is no omic 1 

argument that air forces "are a "check 

primary requirement." · Atomic 

It is 

• interpr Japan Buys Ceylon Rice wordec 

TOKYO Dec 2 Im-Japan has House 

• · ergy c< contracted to buy 30,000 tons of official: 

Chinese rice from Ceylon in a the Al 

move to relieve a serious rice --

shortage. Ceylon obtained the 

th \rice from Communist China in 

exchange for rubber. . 

•
-

REF ID:A58615 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

ARMED FORCES SECURITY AGENCY 

WASHINGTON 25. D. C. 

Ill'. Harold P. Edmundaon ~553t West 18th street 

Lo• Angeles 19, Calitomia 

Dear Mr. l!Hmundeon: 

- IN REPL.Y REFER TO 

6 March 19Sl 

Following up iq letter of 1:3 Februarr 19Sl, I mq -r that 

the paper by the Institute tor Numerical Anal.pis, entitled 

"Proposal.a tor the lleohanical Resolution of German SJntax 

Patteme" ie the most detailed end mat realiatic approach yet 

to come to 1111 attention. It makes mechanical translation aound 

possible, but it aleo makes it apparent that the elaboration ot 

a good electro-mechanical tranalation program would take several 

years. Although it ia true that at this time there is no 

immediate prospect or an economical tranalating mchine, it ia 

not clear that. there will not be one eome dq in the future. 

I, tor one, would be inclined. to think that day not too tar ott, 

in terms of decades. 

Sincerely J'OUl'8, 

WILLIAM F. FRIEDYAN 

@'pp roved for Release by NSA on 04-10-2014 pursuantto E .0. 1352a
f 

,, 

WAR DEPARTMENT I 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF SIGNAL OFFICER I 

WASHINGTON ....... J' !l. 1 ... 

M•or"'n"wa :ror Mr. 1'iill111111 F. rrte41Ma and 

1lbrl.a. b'"'Dk '8. lktwle\,, 

Ia\elllpnee Seetton, war Plana and 'fra1a1q D1~•1oa, 

Otftoe of \he Net Slpal Ottleel'. 

a.ltj••'1 Pateat .lppltoetloa, &el". lo. 70,611, Illprow••' l.n crntog!'l!pbll 

l. !o coaplete J'O'Gl' f'lle reoor4, ooplee en tren•1\te4 

h"'N•1 th or uealatoJ7 paper of April 28, 11111 l•'ter fnll. \he 

Seonta17 of War dated April 2-i, lr.59J le\ter f'rom ~1eaS.uer ot 

Patents t'!rte.:' 1~111' :J, 1"91 end of'f'telel le'wr tro. the Pate\ lamina 

.... 4 1•17 27, 1159. 

t. The ometel i.tter ot 1187 a. 1•• •d tbat or l•lJ' "'· 

1939, ehoul.4 be reed topther, encl it 11111 '9 ., .. that th1• •-

1"91181.U uder \119 Jl'OTl•lOMot seoUoa t8ll -.. •• \he Tlln• Teo ltG19 

tor a fmrthezi perlol et t.hrff J'•r• ruanlllg h'm 1u.1J' rt, 1939. 

'll'or 70Ur 1nrana\lon, no eMllge• hBTe ae-..1~ lMlea •4- la the elatm 

ta thi• e11ae wb.1ell ere th.1:rt1•'hre• in ••ber •Dll nae1n. in 1. te fora aa 

0~1a1aa117 r11ed. 

Clle.rle• J,. Rowe, 

Patenta .ection, Signal Corpa 

@'pp roved for Release by NSA on 09-09-2013 pursuantto E .0. 1352a 

J
#### Morris, Respondent, vs. Niles, Appellant.

*November 8*

November *23, 1886.*

*Appeal to 8. O.: Order denying neto trial made after .judgment.*

An order denying a motion for a new trial made after judgment is entered, will not be reviewed on an appeal from tlie judgment alone.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for *Vernon*County.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

The cause was submitted for the appellant on the brief of *H. P.*Proctor, and for the respondent on that of *O. B. Wy-man*and *Butt ds Cremes.*

LyoN, J.

This action was brought to recover for three months’ labor as a farm hand, performed by the plaintiff for *342tbe defendant, at the stipulated price of $18 per month. The defense is that the hiring was for seven months, and that the plaintiff quit work at the end of three months without cause and without defendant’s consent. The main question litigated on the trial was whether the hiring was for a term of seven months. The plaintiff’s testimony tended to show that the hiring was not for any specified time, while that of the defendant tended to show that it was for seven months. The plaintiff recovered the balance due for his services at the stipulated rate, and judgment was entered against the defendant therefor.

A motion for a new trial for newly-discovered evidence was submitted to the court, but the record fails to show that the court took any action upon it. It does show, however, by necessary inference, that the motion was made after the judgment had been entered; for it was entered October 26th, and the jurats to the affidavits on which the motion was based bear date, respectively, the 27 th and 28th of that month.

This appeal is from the judgment alone. The only error assigned for a reversal is the alleged failure of the court to grant a new trial. Had the court heard the motion for a new trial and entered a formal order denying it, this appeal from the judgment alone would not present such order for review, because it would necessarily have been made after judgment. *Latimer v.*Morrain, 43 Wis. 107; *Weis v.*Schoerner, 53 Wis. 72.

It is thought proper to say that we have looked into the affidavits which state the alleged newly-discovered testimony, and are satisfied that if the court refused a new trial there was no abuse of discretion.

*By the*Gourt.— The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.