alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
n/03/201 1 101 2 FA X 2024935K 2 FA A rOM S 001/00 1 

### SCHULT E B CDfE3iTthTl0i ATTHRNEY S A T

### ln^^iS;PORTATIO^ J Schult e Booth , PC . iuu i Eilinr f srri^f

T Baliinioi'.' , M^fyl-iru l 2'\22' \ 4in.71-.M_li 5 Telephnn r' '1lO.,'J:^.i.nf ' H-KSimil r www.'irhnilrrho.'iih.i-ni n VI A CERTIFIFJ ) MAI L •GCKh TOPtRATlOM o 20! ! fiO V - 3 AI h 0 8 Rober t D . S<:hull p r^c^mll(;!i5lscl^^,'llobol>lh. ( ur n

Al.i n ] . BuOt h oliiOi.>lii(ii.^!:'Jiullebuc.'lr..':n m Ociobcr5.20 n 

# RECEIVE D OC T1 2 21H 1 

# HEARIN G DOCKE T Hearin g Docke t Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 60 0 Independenc e A^'enue , S.w . Wilbu r Wrigh t Buildin g - Suit e 2WI00 0 Washington , D.C . 2059 1 Re : Adminislrato r

v . AvDyn e Aerosep.*iccs , LL C FA A Cas e No . 2mOEA27003 2 Propose dCivi l Penalty V^l-^^ S ' 96? " - M ? I T o WOio mIt Ma y Concern : 'l"hi s Firman dth e undersigne dreprc-^ent s AvUyn e Acroservices , IJ. C wit hregar dt o th e above captionc dmalier . Al l future correspondenc e regardin g sam e shoul db e directe dt o Rober t D . Schulte , Esq . a

t th e addres s indicate dabove . In accordanc e wit hth e Administratoi" ? Fina l Nolic c ol"Propose dCivi l Peiiaitj ' date dScplembe r 28 , 201 1 an dth e Rule s o f Practic e fo r

FA A Civi l Penalty Proceedings , AvDvn e Aerosei-viccs . LL C respectfull y request s ahearin g i n thi s matter . A cop y o f

thi s correspondenc e ha s bee n sen t vi ae-mai l .pd f

t o Edumn dAvenman . Esq . m cd.a^crman'^MiJa.gov . Pleas e d o cal l m e withan y question s regardin g th e foregoing .

S/am_ . " / __JyIr."Jerom e Hodg e (vi ae-mail/.pdf )
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Michael Kravchenko, Chief Financial Officer of Star Energy Corporation (the Company), certifies, under the standards set forth and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-QSB/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                       |  |  |  |                              
|---------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------
|                       |  | 
|Date: October 15, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ Michael Kravchenko       
|                       |  |  |  | Michael Kravchenko           
|                       |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer      
|                       |  |  |  | (Principal Financial Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will
be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Part 1, Section B, Item 2(**  **c )**  **– ID Method**
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-2007

JOHN PAUL TURNER, a/k/a Pops,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

GEORGE BUSH, U.S. President and Commander in

Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces; TIM KAINE,

Virginia Governor and Commander of the

Virginia Army National Guard; JOHN ROBERTS,

Chief Justice of the United States Supreme

Court,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District

Judge. (7:06-cv-00526-sgw)

Submitted: February 2, 2007 Decided: February 28, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Paul Turner, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

John Paul Turner appeals the district court’s order

dismissing this action as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B). We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma

pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the

district court. Turner v. Bush, No. 7:06-cv-00526-sgw (W.D. Va.

Aug. 31, 2006). We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 23.1



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

         We have issued our report dated February 2, 2001, accompanying the
consolidated financial statements and schedule included in the Annual Report of
ONTRACK Data International Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2000. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the
Registration Statements of ONTRACK Data International Inc. on Forms S-8 (File
No. 333-18969, effective December 10, 1996, File No. 333-87873, effective
September 27, 1999 and File No. 333-42496, effective July 28, 2000) and on Form
S-3 (File No. 333-87871, effective October 6, 1999).


                                        /s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 28, 2001
AZTAR CORPORATION
                    2390 East Camelback Road, Suite 400
                          Phoenix, Arizona 85016





                             February 25, 1998



Mr. Joe Cole
Vice President, Corporate Communications
Aztar Corporation
2390 East Camelback Road, Suite 400
Phoenix, Arizona 85016

Dear Mr. Cole:

          By letter agreement dated July 6, 1995 (the "Severance
Agreement"), Aztar Corporation (the "Corporation") agreed to provide you
with certain severance benefits in the event your employment with the
Corporation terminated in a Qualifying Termination (as defined in the
Severance Agreement).  In consideration of your valuable services to the
Corporation and in order to induce you to continue your employment with the
Corporation, the Corporation and you hereby agree to amend the Severance
Agreement by amending and restating clause ii) of Section 7.1 of the
Severance Agreement in its entirety, as follows:

     "ii) in lieu of any further salary or other payments to you under any
     agreement for periods subsequent to the Date of Termination, the
     Corporation shall pay as severance pay to you, at the time specified
     in Section 7.2, a lump sum severance payment (together with the
     payments provided in Sections 7.1(iii) and 7.1(iv) below, the
     "Severance Payments") equal to 200% of your base salary as in effect
     as of the Date of Termination and 200% of the average of the annual
     bonuses awarded to you pursuant to the Corporation's performance bonus
     plan (the "Bonus Plan"), or any successor bonus plan thereto, with
     respect to the three (3) fiscal years (or your total years of
     employment with the Corporation, if less than three (3)) preceding the
     Date of Termination;"
          If this letter sets forth our agreement on the subject matter
hereof, kindly sign and return to the Corporation the enclosed copy of this
letter, which shall then constitute our agreement on this subject.


                              Sincerely,

                              AZTAR CORPORATION



                              By PAUL E. RUBELI
                              Paul E. Rubeli
                              Chairman of the Board, President and
                                   Chief Executive Officer


Agreed to this 24th day
of March 1998.

JOE COLE
Joe Cole

Address:  Joe Cole
          Vice President, Corporate Communications
          c/o Aztar Corporation
          2390 East Camelback Road, Suite 400
          Phoenix, Arizona  85016
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Sonus Networks, Inc. (the “Company”)for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, EllenB. Richstone, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)   the Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.
| Date: November 8, 2005 | /s/ ELLEN  B. RICHSTONE         |
|-----------------------------|---------------------------------|
|                        | Ellen B. Richstone              |
|                        | *Chief Financial Officer*       |
| * *                    | *(Principal Financial Officer)* |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6187

HARTFORD R. BEST,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN MCKITHER BODISON,

Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. R. Bryan Harwell, District 

Judge. (2:10-cv-01381-RBH)

Submitted: May 26, 2011 Decided: June 1, 2011

Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Hartford R. Best, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Hartford R. Best seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

dismissing Best’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition as untimely 

filed. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that Best has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 

### Knightdale Airport, Inc. and Carlina, Inc. COMPLAINANT 

### V. Franklin County, North Carolina RESPONDENT 

### Docket No. 16-13-08

NOTICE OF DISMISSAL
On November 26,2013 , the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) docketed a forma l complaint filed under 14 CFR Part 16 by Knightdale A irport Inc., and Car lina, Inc. against Franklin County, North Carolina. On February 11 , the FAA received a Joint Motion to Withdraw Complaint, signed by the attorneys for both parties to the matter. The attorneys advised that the parties have reached a comprehensive settlement oftheir disputes and therefore jointly move to withdraw the complaint. As the parties have resolved their disputes, the joint motion filed pursuant to 14 CFR § 16.19 is granted. Accordingly , the complaint is withdrawn and the complaint proceeding under FAA Docket No. 16-13-08 is hereby dismissed and terminated.

Randall S. Fiertz Director, Airport Compl iance

and Management Anal ysis

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on



# f#-f{fM.uoAf2L

**~** , I 

### caused to be placed in the United States mail (first class mail , postage paid), a true copy oft e Dismissa l for FAA Docket 16

- 13

-08 addressed to: Counsel for Complai nant John R. Copley, Esquire Garofalo Goerlich Hainbach, P.C
. 1200 New Hampshire Avenue , NW Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 Counsel for Respondent David R. 

### Guin, Esq. Batton & 

### Guin P.O. Box603 l 07 S. Main Street Louisburg, NC 27549 Hand Delivered to: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket FAA Office ofAirport Compliance and Management Analysis



# f2adl~ Claudia Roberts Office ofAirport Compliance and

Management Analysis
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Sonus Networks, Inc. (the “Company”)for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, HassanM. Ahmed, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors of theCompany, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)   the Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

| Date: August 2, 2007 |                                                                                 |
|----------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                 | /s/ Hassan M. Ahmed                                                                  |
|                 | Hassan M. Ahmed  Chairman and Chief Executive Officer  (Principal Executive Officer) |

 

----
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

MARKEVIUS KEON SIMMONS, 

Appellant, 

v. Case No. 5D21-2927 

LT Case No. 35-2014-CF-000254-A 

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee. 

________________________________/ 

Decision filed January 10, 2023

3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court

for Lake County, 

James R. Baxley, Judge.

Rachael E. Reese, of O'Brien Hatfield 

Reese, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General,

Tallahassee, and Robin A. Compton,

Assistant Attorney General, Daytona 

Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WALLIS, EISNAUGLE and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                             EXHIBIT NUMBER 23.1

               Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
listed below, of our report dated February 9, 2001, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of IMRglobal Corp. included in the Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2000.

      (1)   Form S-3 No. 333-86823
      (2)   Form S-3 No. 333-91983
      (3)   Form S-8 No. 333-24027, pertaining to the 1996 Stock Incentive Plan
      (4)   Form S-8 No. 333-87095, pertaining to the 1996 Stock Incentive Plan
      (5)   Form S-8 No. 333-86753, pertaining to the 1999 Employee Stock
            Incentive Plan


                                                           Ernst & Young LLP

Tampa, Florida
March 22, 2001
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE ERNESTO RIVERA, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 18-70897 

Agency No. A095-006-059 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 19, 2019**

Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. 

Jose Ernesto Rivera, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for 

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an 

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of 

removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the 

 

* 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

FEB 21 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-70897 

agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 

2014). We deny the petition for review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Rivera applied for asylum 

within a reasonable time of any changed or extraordinary circumstances as to 

excuse the untimely filing of his asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.4(a)(4),

(5).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Rivera failed 

to establish a nexus between the harm he suffered or fears and a protected ground. 

See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an applicant “must provide 

some evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”); see also Zetino v. Holder, 

622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An [applicant’s] desire to be free from 

harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members 

bears no nexus to a protected ground.”). Thus, his withholding of removal claim 

fails. 

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because 

Rivera failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with 

the consent or acquiescence of the government of El Salvador. See Aden v. 

Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
<PAGE>

                           AMERUS LIFE HOLDINGS, INC.
                EXHIBIT 12 - STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF RATIOS
                         RATIO OF EARNINGS FIXED CHARGES


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                       Years Ended December 31,
                                                   ----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   1996           1995           1994           1993           1992
                                                   ----           ----           ----           ----           ----
                                                                       (Dollars in thousands)
<S>                                           <C>            <C>             <C>           <C>            <C>
Earnings:

Income before income taxes
  and accounting changes                       $118,032       $110,550        $26,131        $55,775        $57,312

Add, Combined Fixed
  Charges and Preferred
  Stock Dividends                                 2,142          2,356          5,423          6,991         10,532
                                               --------       --------       --------       --------       --------

Adjusted Earnings                              $120,174       $112,906        $31,554        $62,766        $67,844
                                               --------       --------       --------       --------       --------
                                               --------       --------       --------       --------       --------

Fixed Charges:

Interest on indebtedness                         $2,142         $2,356         $5,423         $6,991        $10,532
                                               --------       --------       --------       --------       --------
                                               --------       --------       --------       --------       --------

Ratio of Earnings to
  Combined Fixed
  Changes and Preferred
  Stock Dividends                                 56.09          47.92           5.82           8.98           6.44
</TABLE>
#### Werner v. Schreck.

1. Exceptions. — Exceptions to the instructions of the court to the jury will not be noticed, unless the bill of exceptions states the testimony so that the court can decide whether there is any foundation for the exceptions.

(2 *Ghand.*46.)

ERROR to the Circuit Court for *Milwaukee*County.

This was an action of assumpsit for work, labor and services rendered under a special contract for the erection of a building by the plaintiff in error for the defendant in error.

The error upon which the cause was brought into this court, consists in the charge of the court to the jury, relating to the subject-matter of the contract and the evidence given on the trial, but which evidence was not stated hi the bill of exceptions. The only importance attached to the case, as it came before this court, and as decided by it, seems to be, that if exceptions are taken to the charge of the court, on the trial of a cause, which charge relates to the evidence given therein, the evidence must be stated in the bill of exceptions in order that this court -may see that the charge was inapt to that evidence, and erroneous.

*H. 8.*Orton, for plaintiff in error.

*J. 8.*Brown, for defendant in error.

Jackson, J.

The error alleged in this cause is based upon the following charge to, the jury, of the judge before whom it was tried:

> “ In the opinion of the court the plaintiff was required by the contract to perform work within two months from the commencement of the same, only to the amount of one hundred and thirty dollars, the price of the lot mentioned in said contract, and the residue of said work might be performed any time within a reasonable period under the terms of said contract.”

*395And, also, upon his refusal to charge as follows:

> *“*That the jury must find by the testimony, that the plaintiff completed the building of the house, except plastering the roof, within two months from the commencement of the work, or the plaintiff could not recover upon the special agreement set out in his petition, and setting out no other agreement he could not recover at all.”

The correctness of these objections can only be determined by a reference to the testimony given upon the trial.

Upon examining the bill of exceptions, I find no portion of the testimony is presented, nor is its substance even stated.

Nothing appears, therefore, upon the record to sustain the allegation of error, and this court must presume that the instructions of the court below were correct;

Judgment affirmed.
Order entered December 2012 0052. 

In The

Court of [ppeaI 

 i tritt of at BaIIa 

No. 05-12-01647-CR

RICARDO BELTRAN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F10-56077-M

ORDER

Appellant was sentenced m the above appeal on January 30, 2012. He filed a motion for

new trial on February 28, 2012 and a notice of appeal on April 26, 2012. The notice of appeal,

however, was not forwarded to this Court until November 26, 2012. Neither the clerk’s nor the

reporter’s records have been filed.

Accordingly, we ORDER the Dallas County Dismct Clerk to file the clerk’s record

within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order.

We ORDER Belinda Baraka, as official court reporter of the 194th Judicial District

Court, to file the reporter’s record within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to Gary

Fitzsimmons, Dallas County District Clerk; Dallas County District Clerk, Criminal Records
Division; Belinda Bamka, Official Court Reporter, 194th Judicial District Co.urt; and counsel for

all parttes.

DAVID L. BRIDGES

JUSTICE